JUDGMENT K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation assessed for certain crush injuries alleged to have been suffered by the appellant. In the course of trial, the petitioner gave evidence to the effect that the accident took place on 12.03.1990 when the petitioner was crossing the road. He had been admitted in a private Christian Missionary Hospital where he had treatment for nearly 3 months and discharged on 18.09.1990. The medical certificate, which had been issued referred the case of lacerated wound in both legs with fracture of bone of left leg and at the metatorsal bone. The doctor's evidence was that the certificate relating to disability was to the effect that the person was 100% mentally disabled. It is not very clear from the evidence whether the abnormal behaviour and disorientation of what the medical certificate states was resultant to the accident but the Tribunal, however, found that there was no reference to the medical mental illness in the petition or the evidence of the father, which was examined on his side, assessed the compensation only for the injuries suffered in his leg. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that in the manner of assessment of compensation, the Tribunal was in error in holding that there had been any contributory negligence. I would also find that in a case of accident involving death or injuries to a pedestrian a greater amount of circumspection and care must be always taken by the owner and responsibility is wholly on the driver of such vehicle for the accident. In India, roads are used more by pedestrian than by motorists and therefore, there shall be a duty of every operator of a motor cycle to apply enough care to ensure that he does not cause any harm to a person using the road as pedestrian. I will, therefore, reverse the finding of the Tribunal that there had been any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. I would hold the driver of the vehicle to be wholly responsible for the accident. 3. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the Tribunal had provided for 20,000/- towards medical expenses and 14,000/-towards the disability and the miseries caused on fracture of both bones. The Court awarded additional amount of 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. I would hold the driver of the vehicle to be wholly responsible for the accident. 3. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the Tribunal had provided for 20,000/- towards medical expenses and 14,000/-towards the disability and the miseries caused on fracture of both bones. The Court awarded additional amount of 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The payable compensation assessed was at Rs.80,000/- and making an abatement to the extent of 50%, awarded Rs.40,000/- in favour of the petitioner. 4. I find that even apart from the evidence of PW-1, who had spoken about the hospitalization, PW-4 Dr. R.K. Patnaik, who was a senior psychiatrist, gave evidence to the effect that the possibility of mental handicap at 100% due to head injury received by Jai Pal could not be ruled out. This is rather an intriguing revelation, for the PW1 did not talk about any injury on his head. Even the regimen of treatment adopted on the petitioner appears to be only for fracture of his legs in which he was advised to consult an orthopedic surgeon for operation of his leg. I cannot, therefore, find any virtue about the evidence given by PW4 assessing the mental disability of the petitioner. The petitioner himself has not been examined evidently on account of the mental condition of the claimant and again curiously if the petitioner was so severely mentally disabled, the petition itself could not have been presented in his own name. It could have been presented only by a lawfully competent guardian describing his mental condition as requiring appointment of a guardian, even apart from the representation of father as guardian to a minor. I have gone through the evidence of PW3, who was the father. This evidence was given on 09.01.1991 and the medical certificate which has been filed in Court was issued on 11.02.1991. Evidently, the assessment of mental disability itself has come about subsequently after the evidence of PW3. PW-3, therefore, has only spoken about the inability of the claimant to walk or even sit with the support of his legs. His own long hospitalization and his confinement to bed with severe injuries in his leg, he had claimed that his mental faculties also got affected. PW-3, therefore, has only spoken about the inability of the claimant to walk or even sit with the support of his legs. His own long hospitalization and his confinement to bed with severe injuries in his leg, he had claimed that his mental faculties also got affected. Since a reference to mental ailment came in with no definite nexus about mental condition to the accident, it was suggested in the cross-examination that the accident itself was on account of the fact that his son was mentally retarded person and he crossed the road without minding the vehicle which was plying on the road. 5. I find the whole quality of evidence to be grossly deficient but I am convinced that in the manner of assessment, there had not been proper assessment even relating to the extent of disability caused to his leg assuming that his mental condition itself was not on account of the accident. He was said to have had a serious disability to walk or even sit. He had crushed injuries. The nature of crush injuries to the extent to which the disability impacted his normal activities is not clearly established but I am prepared to assume that the amenities of life for young person of 14 years were seriously impaired for the rest of his life. Actually he has been found to be 100% mentally sick with total disability for earning but I would apportion the 40% disability as resulting in extent of 40% loss of earning capacity. Assuming his average income to be 1500/- per month, I will take the loss of earning capacity resulting from the injury at 600/- per month and adopt a multiplier of 15 and take the loss of earning capacity at 1,08,000/-. I will retain the compensation for pain and suffering at 20,000/- assessed by the Tribunal and also enhance the medical expenses accorded to the petitioner from 20,000/- to 50,000/- as stated by the petitioner in view of the long hospitalization for three months as an inpatient. I will provide for attendant charges at 5,000/- during the period of his hospitalization and make a further provision for 5,000/- for transportation. In sum, the overall compensation payable would be 1,88,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been assessed by the Tribunal would attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 6. In sum, the overall compensation payable would be 1,88,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been assessed by the Tribunal would attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 6. The award of the Tribunal stands modified and the compensation is enhanced to the above extent. The liability shall be entirely on the insurer in tune with my finding that the accident was a result of the negligent driving of the insured's vehicle only and not account of any contributory negligence. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.