JUDGMENT : S.R. Waghmare, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimant u/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 26.07.2012 passed by VIII Additional MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 195/2007 awarding a total sum of Rs. 3,51,000/-. The appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement since the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement is available to the appellant according to the provisions of law. Moreover it is not necessary to go into the question regarding findings of the Tribunal in relation to liability of the insurance Company or nature of the accident. It has not been challenged and the findings of the Tribunal have attained finality since neither cross appeal nor cross objections have been filed and thus the said findings of the Tribunal, therefore, have become final. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.07.2006 approximately at 16:15 pm non-appellant No.2 Santosh was driving a metador from Charkyapuri square police station Annpurna, Indore which was filled with gitti (crushed stone), the vehicle was driven negligently and speedily and it caused the accident. The metador entered into the shop which belonged to one Deepak, who also received grievous injuries and the appellant Antersingh, who was sitting in the said vehicle as a labourer received injuries also, since the vehicle had turned turtle. On the date of the accident non-appellant No.1 Nandkishore was the owner of the vehicle and it was insured with respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company. The present appellant received injuries and as a result of which he filed a claim case u/S.173 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the MACT, Indore. 3. The claim was contested by the respondents and after adducing the evidence learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,51,000/- to the present appellant. 4. Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged the fact that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the trial Court has failed to consider the permanent disability of the present appellant it has not been properly assessed. Moreover Counsel submitted that disability of the appellant was held to be 50%, whereas medical certificate Ex.P/9 available on record certified by PW.9 Dr. Moreover Counsel submitted that disability of the appellant was held to be 50%, whereas medical certificate Ex.P/9 available on record certified by PW.9 Dr. Mehotra indicated that the claimant suffered 80% disability in regard to the whole body and it was almost a case of Paraplegia. Counsel placed reliance on Kavita v. Deepak and others 2012 ACJ 2162 to state that when the female aged, 30 years injured in an accident was in a vegetative state and required constant physiotherapy and one attendant then the Apex Court had awarded a sum of Rs. 34,38,747 since she was working as a partner in a private firm. However under head of the permanent disability Rs. 3,67,200 were awarded and Rs. 6,00,000/- was awarded for the attendant chargers and Rs. 3,00,000/- for physical and mental pain and besides other Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Counsel submitted that in the instant case only 50% of income has been calculated by learned Tribunal; on the notional basis Rs. 3,000/- per month and the permanent disability has been decided Rs. 3,06,000/- which was way below the standards established and needs to be enhanced. Moreover only Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for special diet and Rs. 30,000/- for other expenses and nothing has been paid for the attendant charges, physical and mental pain and loss of amenities and loss of expectation. Counsel also placed reliance on R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. and others 1995 ACJ 366 to state that claimant was suffering from paraplegia below the waist and the injured was aged, 52 years the Apex Court further allowed expenses for electric wheelchair and Fowler's bed Rs. 1,42,000/- and for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- and for future medical expenses were also awarded. Counsel prayed that the same benefit be extended to the present appellant. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant and submitted that appellant was unable to prove his claim. Initially Trial Court has exonerated the Insurance Company and liability has been fixed only on remand from the High Court. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant and submitted that appellant was unable to prove his claim. Initially Trial Court has exonerated the Insurance Company and liability has been fixed only on remand from the High Court. Moreover Counsel submitted that initially MLC did not indicate Paraplegia and there is not an iota of evidence on record regarding income of the claimant, the claimant himself admitted in the Trial Court that he had no evidence to lead regarding his earning; moreover it could not be established whether he was the labourer or cleaner in the said vehicle. Counsel submitted that disability certificate of 80% prepared by Dr. Mehotra indicates that the appellant is suffering 80% disability on the lower part of his body not with regards to entire body and he was able to work with his upper part of the body and hence Counsel prayed that the appellant does not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal. 6. Having gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant and the impugned judgment, I find that the income fixed by the Tribunal is on lower side considering the fact that appellant was working as a skilled labourer and therefore, his monthly income can be easily taken to Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month and future increments etc. was required to be enhanced suitably. Similarly it has been admitted by the Doctor that the appellant will never walk again and never work standing up and he would not be able to sit for long also and apparently nothing has been paid towards pain and suffering and for attendant charges, nothing has also not been paid considering the fact that the claimant is unable to carry out his everyday abulations without help then attendant shall have to be paid. Apex Court in the matter of R.D. Hattandadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others 1995 ACJ 336 held thus : "9. Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (ii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is short ended; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. Placing reliance R.D. Hattangadi and Kavita (supra), I find that award needs to be enhanced suitably. In view of the above, lump sum of another Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded to the claimant regarding future medical help, attendant charges and towards pain and suffering. Considering the fact that the appellant is only a 24 year old youth who requires a constant attendant, I find that award under the circumstances as awarded by the tribunal definitely needs to be enhanced. In other words, the claimant is entitled total sum of Rs. 8,51,000/-. Needless to say that any amount paid by the respondent Insurance Company towards the awarded amount to the appellant as directed by the Tribunal shall be adjusted. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above, the enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. 8. Counsel fees Rs. 1,500/-, if certified.