JUDGMENT : K. KANNAN, J. 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for a person, who was injured in an accident that resulted in bursting of the 10 vertebra. The doctor, who had examined him gave a certificate and also gave evidence to the effect that the patient was suffering from traumatic paraplegia along with urinary and bowl incontinence. The doctor had certified him to be permanently physically disabled to the extent of 100%. The suggestion in the cross-examination to PW-6 was that it was a forged certificate. In this case an application for appointment of commissioner has been filed stating that the petitioner was not in a position to move and cannot come to Court and seeking for permission to be examined on commission. The respondents did not file objection to the same and the commissioner was in fact appointed. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and he has given evidence to the effect that he is confined in bed and unable to get up to attend to even calls of nature. Gurmit Singh was examined as PW-3 to speak about the fact that the claimant is confined to bed and that he is attending to him and is being paid of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The cross-examination to him was that he is not having any receipts regarding the payment received by him. It is not understood as to how he could have any receipts and if such receipts were there, it should be only with the claimant himself. PW-5 is an agriculturist, who has given evidence to the effect that he was attending to agricultural work on the land, which was owned by the claimant. The claimant himself given evidence that he has 25-26 bighas of land. There has been no cross-examination any where that the claimant was not possessed of any agricultural land. On the other hand, the suggestion to the claimant was that all the agricultural operations have been looked after by him and the income was still being realized by him. The claimant also stated that he was having a shop dealing with provisions and the Sarpanch of the village gave evidence to the effect that he had known the claimant and he was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claimant himself gave evidence that he was earning Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimant also stated that he was having a shop dealing with provisions and the Sarpanch of the village gave evidence to the effect that he had known the claimant and he was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The claimant himself gave evidence that he was earning Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The Court rejected this evidence and held that no proof had been adduced about the possession of land or his income status. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal provided for Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,20,000/- for attendant charges, Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 2,40,000/- towards loss of income. I find the assessment of compensation to be inadequate under the major heads claimed in the petition. 2. The disability suffered by him is brought about by the fact that the claimant could not even come to Court and a local commissioner was appointed to examine him at his own house. The insurance company did not have the courage to say that he was faking his illness and he was merely confined to bed. In fact there is no need for such a pretension for his own ailment is brought out through the doctor's certification and the evidence given by him that the claimant had a bursting vertebral and he was paraplegic. The Court should have only proceeded to see as to how the compensation could be awarded for the loss of income that has evidently resulted from his injuries. I have already observed that there was no cross-examination about his status as an agriculturist and his possession of land to the extent which was stated by him. The Tribunal was in error in finding that no documentary proof was made when his holding as spoken to by him was not doubted in the cross-examination. If he was employing an agricultural labour and he was paying Rs. 2,000/- as salary, the claimant could not have been earning anything less than at least Rs. 3,000/-. Even going by the most modest of estimates that the employment of an agricultural labour had produced to him the substantial income, I would assume that his own personal contribution would have resulted in better output and to that extent there could have been a loss to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month and providing for the amount at Rs. 500/- per month and providing for the amount at Rs. 2,000/- as the inevitable expense that he had to make in order to secure his agricultural income, I would take the average loss of income at Rs. 2500/- per month towards agricultural operations. The nature of business or shop which was said to be running is nowhere evident but I will take the income from other source at Rs. 2500/- and adopt a multiplier suitable to the age 41 and take the loss of income as Rs. 4,20,000/-. The attendant charges will have to be also increased and taking the monthly expense to be Rs. 500/-, providing for a multiplier of 14, it will result in an amount of Rs. 2,52,000/- capitalize to yield the said sum for the rest of his life. He has been rendered to lead a vegetative life and I would also provide towards loss of amenities and for reduction in life expectancy as Rs. 1,00,000/-. There is also evidence through PW-4, who has claimed that he was an owner of taxi and he has collected from the claimant Rs. 20,000/- towards taxi charges for recurrent visits to the hospital. I would not find that to be high considering the fact that he was taking treatment at Ludhiana, Chandigarh and Karnal. The overall compensation would require to be tabulated as under:- The total compensation that would become payable will be Rs. 8,72,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal will attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.