JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral):- The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant. The petitioner had sustained severe head injury with the compound Grade-III communited fracture of both bones of the left lower limb with the right calcaneum and right calavide, resulting in loss of memory, disfigurement and impairment in her vision. The Medical Board, which had examined her, had certified the disability to be 77%. 2. The petitioner was pursuing MBA course at the time of motor accident resulting in her injuries causing the disablement and the evidence was that on account of the injury, she could not complete her education and could not secure any employment. She had very serious impairment of her mobility and with her defect in vision and her inability to write, she has become unfit to lead a normal life. She is unable to pursue any career to support herself. The Tribunal has, while assessing compensation, determined an amount of Rs.3,04,000/- as payable to her, that included 1 lakh of rupees towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- as pain and suffering, besides other claims allowed to aggregate to the amount referred to above. 3. During the pendency of appeal, an application has been filed for reception of additional evidence to show that she has been incurring recurring medical expenses for having to take a prolonged treatment at the Apollo Hospital at Delhi. The documents showed prima facie a continuance of the treatment that started at the time when she received injury and I therefore, gave opportunity for the petitioner to examine the doctor about the medical treatment that she was undergoing. The disability certificate filed contained several technical expressions and I had therefore summoned the doctor, who had been one of the members of the Medical Board that issued the certificate. The doctor, who is the Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Neuro Surgery, was also therefore examined. The Superintendent of the Apollo Hospital was also examined as a witness to speak about the continuance treatment for the petitioner was getting and the medicines that had been dispensed to her towards the treatment. 4. The certificate issued by the doctor was allowed to be taken on record by the Tribunal without eliciting from the doctor what it meant. The Superintendent of the Apollo Hospital was also examined as a witness to speak about the continuance treatment for the petitioner was getting and the medicines that had been dispensed to her towards the treatment. 4. The certificate issued by the doctor was allowed to be taken on record by the Tribunal without eliciting from the doctor what it meant. It is a recurrent theme in our Courts that the doctors’ evidence is never put to any useful purpose. No more detail than the fact that the patient was examined and that he or she issued a certificate are elicited. Such evidence that helps neither the Court nor the party. In every case, the doctor certifies the disability, it shall be the endeavour of the Tribunal to elicit the requisite relevant facts, if they are not already elicited viz., the nature of injuries, the nature of disability, as to how a particular disability could impact the earning skills. There are aspects which an expert doctor would be most competent to say. This must be matched with the claimant’s own evidence of what disability she claims that she is suffering from and what she speaks about the present status of the employment in relation to a particular employment or particular avocation which she was pursuing before the accident. It is in this relative comparison that it is possible to ascertain the loss of earning capacity, besides how the disability has inconvenienced the claimant in enjoying the normal amenities of life. The non-pecuniary heads of compensation relating to disability comes with a whole spectral heads, such as loss of amenities, disfigurement, inability to perform certain types of activities and such like. A doctor’s evidence that contains technical expression would require to be demystified, for, neither the lawyer nor a litigant, not to say of Judges themselves, are equipped sufficiently to know what the technical expressions mean and how the particular regimen of treatment or the nature of injuries that have been noticed would cause permanence of any disability or how they can affect the earning capacity of a person. In this case, the certificate used several expressions which were not of common parlance and it was under those circumstances that this Court felt constrained to allow for oral evidence to be brought again by the very same doctor, who had examined the claimant and had assessed the disability at 77%. 5. In this case, the certificate used several expressions which were not of common parlance and it was under those circumstances that this Court felt constrained to allow for oral evidence to be brought again by the very same doctor, who had examined the claimant and had assessed the disability at 77%. 5. The disability certificate in this case is exhibited as P-4 and it reads as follows:- “This is to certify that patient Miss Pooja D/o Sh. Nafe Singh aged 23 years female resident of H.No.78/29, Jasbir Colony, Rohtak whose signature/thumb impression are appended below has been examined by the board constituted by the Medical Superintendent. She was suffering from head injury with AC SDH Right fronto-parietal region with dysarthria with ataxia with borderline intellectual f unction with right 3 rd nerve palsy with # B.B. Leg left with # clavicle right with # decrehen (sic). Her permanent disability is 77% (seventy seven percent).” (underlining mine) 6. The evidence of the doctor who was examined before this Court, has spoken about the nature of injuries, the type of fractures and the manner of assessment of disability in the following words:- “Patient had suffered a head injury with acute Subdural Haematoma at the right fronto parietal region with dysarthria with moderate ataxia with border line intellectual function with right third nerve palsy. She also had fracture of both bone left leg with fracture clavicle right with fracture olecranon (elbow). I have not examined whether the fractures of clavicle, olecranon and the leg had united or not. One of the members in the Board was Orthopaedic Surgeon and he had assessed the history regarding the fracture of the bones. I am not myself conversant with the assessment regarding the above fractures. Orthopadic Surgeon had assessed the disability to have resulted to the extent of 15%. Orthopaedic Surgeon has noticed that there had been a malunion at the site of the fracture in her leg. The doctor has noted that there is a difficulty in squatting and pain left leg. The haematoma, which we have recorded in the certificate, was what we found from the treatment records and was not capable of actual verification at the time of issuance of the certificate. Because of the haematoma, there is dysarthria which means difficulty in speaking. There is slurring of speech. It is not likely to improve with passage of time. The haematoma, which we have recorded in the certificate, was what we found from the treatment records and was not capable of actual verification at the time of issuance of the certificate. Because of the haematoma, there is dysarthria which means difficulty in speaking. There is slurring of speech. It is not likely to improve with passage of time. There is a difficulty in coordination of her facial muscles and consequently, she cannot articulate properly. She has modest ataxia which means difficulty in her gait. She can walk on smooth surface, but cannot walk on uneven surface. She cannot run. She can sign her signature, but she cannot right fast We made her write and she has signed in the certificate, but we noticed that she cannot write fast. We have assessed her disability to the extent of 61% from neuro surgery point of view. This assessment of 61% disability was on the basis of the disability assessment module released by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. As per the guidelines issued by the Department, moderate ataxia is assessed at 50% physical impairment and a moderate dysarthria results in 25% physical impairment. The assessment of permanent disability is purely by clinical examination. Considering the fact that the accident had taken place in 2006 and the assessment of disability was made in 2008 when she was found having those disabilities, we assumed the disability to be permanent in nature. She was also examined by a clinical psychologist and found her IQ 76 (border line intellectual function). On account of this, she was found 25% permanent disabled. She can perform simple tasks, but cannot perform complex functions. In our assessment, she is not fit to work in office or industrial environment.” (underlining mine) 7. It can be noticed from the doctor’s evidence that her head injury had caused a reduction in her IQ level to a borderline intellectual function. She was pursing a postgraduate management course. It is common knowledge that the course prepares a person for effective communication skills and ability to manage men and resources. She could hardly cope with complex duty or managerial skills with her borderline intellectual function as the doctor has noticed that her injury has resulted. She has impairment in her vision that constitutes a further disability for her assimilation of facts and knowledge, for, eye inevitably is a most crucial window of knowledge. She could hardly cope with complex duty or managerial skills with her borderline intellectual function as the doctor has noticed that her injury has resulted. She has impairment in her vision that constitutes a further disability for her assimilation of facts and knowledge, for, eye inevitably is a most crucial window of knowledge. She has suffered an impairment in her gait as well and the doctor has stated that she can walk in smooth surface, but she cannot walk fast. The doctor also states that while she could sign in the certificate to testify to her own identity, he has noticed that she could not write fast. In every sense she has come by what the doctor himself has testified to be incompetent to work in an office or industrial environment. It is another way of saying that her postgraduate course in management has come to nothing and she would require to be maintained all times in her own house. The Medical Superintendent, who is also a doctor, has given evidence to the effect that she was brought for treatment before an Orthopaedician and she is still taking treatment in the Orthopeadic Department, in the Department of Neuro Sciences and in the Department of ENT. She has also been operated upon subsequently in 2012 and discharged after hospitalization. The medical bills that were issued to her for treatment have also been brought on record. Before the Tribunal, she had produced bills through P-6 (Rs.2,49,940/-); P1 (Rs.10,219); P4 (Rs.5,28,139/-); and P-8 (Rs.32,751/-). Before this Court, additional evidence was produced with reference to the treatment at PGI that accounts for an expenditure of Rs. 42,446/-. The evidence of the doctor PW14 also suggests that she would require future treatment as well. When the prodigious materials had been brought towards medical treatment and expenses, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding only 1 lakh of rupees towards medical expenses. The entire expenses must have been provided for. The Tribunal must have also taken note of the fact that the injuries were so serious and if there was evidence that she would require treatment through out her life, the Court must have provided for future medical expenses as well. The entire expenses must have been provided for. The Tribunal must have also taken note of the fact that the injuries were so serious and if there was evidence that she would require treatment through out her life, the Court must have provided for future medical expenses as well. I would estimate the future medical expenses 2 lakhs at least, considering the fact that she has already spent a little over 9 lakhs of rupees and she is 28 years of age and she has a whole life span to course through with all her disabilities. Her injury to the brain must have resulted in securing a suitor for marriage and reduced considerably all the amenities of her life. Her own loss of earning capacity must also be taken which I would estimate that on an average as a postgraduate MBA student, she would have earned Rs.15,000/- per month perhaps, the most consecrative amount, if not an abysmally a low amount. The doctor has certified the physical disability to be 77% to which I will assess as the loss of earning capacity as 75%. The monthly loss shall be taken as Rs.11,250/-. She was 23 years of age at the time of her accident and would therefore take also take the maximum multiplier as 18 and take the loss of earning capacity as Rs.24,30,000/- (11,250 x 12 x 18). I would also provide for loss of prospect of marriage at Rs.1 lakh and loss of amenities for life at Rs. 2 lakhs. Pain and suffering which had been assessed at Rs.50,000/- will be enhanced to 1 lakh of rupees. The medical expenses already determined shall now be raised to 11 lakhs of rupees. For transport expenses, I will provide for further sum of Rs. 50,000/- and for an attendant, I would take an average expenditure that she may have incurred as Rs. 1,000/- per month and adopt a multiplier of 18 which will create a corpus that can return at least 1,000/- for attendant charges, which shall therefore be Rs. 2,16,000/- (1,000 x 12 x18). The total compensation, that would become payable, would be Rs. 41,96,000/- (Forty one lakhs ninety six thousand only). The liability shall be in the same manner as already determined by the Tribunal. 2,16,000/- (1,000 x 12 x18). The total compensation, that would become payable, would be Rs. 41,96,000/- (Forty one lakhs ninety six thousand only). The liability shall be in the same manner as already determined by the Tribunal. Since a large portion of the amount relates to the loss of earning capacity, I will confine the interest portion to be taxed only on the medical expenses incurred which is to be tune of Rs. 9 lakhs and for transport expenses, which I have estimated at Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- already assessed towards pain and suffering. Interest shall be worked out only on Rs.10 lakhs @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment and for the rest of the amount, there shall be no past interest. Future interest shall be @ 6% from the date of this order till the date of payment. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. ---------0.B.S.0------------