JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. Assailing the award dated 31.7.2009 passed by 13th Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Claim Case No. 933 of 2008 on the point of inadequacy of compensation, the injured appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an accident that took place on 28.1.2008 in which he sustained injuries. The injured-claimant has filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of receiving head injuries in the road accident that took place on 28.1.2008. He remained hospitalised in C.H.L. Apollo Hospital at Indore from 28.1.2008 to 24.3.2008. It is stated that the injured was not in a position to move without assistance and unable to perform the duty in future, however, his promotional prospects have itself been lost by such accident. It is further said that on the date of accident he was working as a Private Secretary in Government of Madhya Pradesh and getting salary of Rs. 24,000, however, compensation to the tune of Rs. 85,00,000 was prayed for. 2. Insurance company has resisted the claim on many grounds including violation of the terms and conditions of the policy but all of those grounds have been negatived by recording a finding to prove the accident and negligence of offending vehicle and also of receiving injuries arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,09,274 for medical expenses, Rs. 11,08,800 for future loss of earnings due to permanent disability, Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000 for special diet, Rs. 10,000 for attendant charges, Rs. 25,000 for future medical expenses and Rs. 1,926 for conveyance charges making the total compensation of Rs. 17,70,000 while passing the award along with interest. 3. Mr. J.L. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that on account of receiving the injuries as the appellant is not in a position to move from the bed, however, on medical ground he has applied for voluntary retirement which was accepted by the GAD vide order dated 10.5.2010 w.e.f. 20.5.2010. In consequence thereto he is merely getting pension of Rs. 21,000 only leaving aside all the promotional and future prospects in the employment. In consequence thereto he is merely getting pension of Rs. 21,000 only leaving aside all the promotional and future prospects in the employment. Thus, compensation for future loss of earnings may further be awarded taking it to be a case of 100 per cent permanent disability for loss of earnings faced by the injured and the family due to said accident. It is further said that medical bills from Exh. P933 to P1017 have been ignored by the Tribunal on unsustainable reasons, however, the finding to that effect is perverse. It is also contended that Rs. 10,000 awarded for pain and suffering is inadequate looking to the injuries whereby the injured was bedridden for whole life and unable to maintain his life. Under other heads amount so awarded is inadequate. It is further contended that the injured is required to undergo physiotherapy for whole life, therefore, future medical expenses may be awarded. In view of foregoing, it is urged that the appeal may be allowed and the enhancement may be directed reasonably. 4. Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the insurance company, is not in a position to defend the insurance company on the ground of liability but it is urged by him that in appeal the enhancement of only Rs. 10,00,000 has been prayed for, therefore, the enhancement to such extent may be awarded. In the considered opinion of this court, in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The APSRTC, rep. by its General Manager and Another Vs. M. Ramadevi and Others (2008) 3 SCC 379 , the said argument is hereby repelled. It is now contended by Mr. Jain that in the facts of the case, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the injured because he was in the employment and even after obtaining voluntary retirement, he is getting pension which is sufficient to maintain his life, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may be maintained without any enhancement in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the head injuries received by the injured and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, it is apparent that the injured has now become permanently disabled for whole life. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the head injuries received by the injured and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, it is apparent that the injured has now become permanently disabled for whole life. On account of receiving injuries, he has taken voluntary retirement which was accepted by the GAD as per order dated 10.5.2010 w.e.f. 20.5.2010. In consequence thereto he is getting pension of approximately Rs. 21,000. In the considered opinion of this court, the pension which he is getting at present is less than the amount which he could have obtained if he had remained in employment for whole life and also getting the promotional chances. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, looking to the pay scale the per month loss of earnings may be accepted as Rs. 15,000 even on receiving the amount of pension of Rs. 21,000. If we treat it to be a case of 100 per cent permanent disability, though certificate of 70 per cent permanent disability has been brought on record, then treating loss of earnings of Rs. 15,000 per month, compensation may be calculated. In the considered opinion of this court thereby sum comes to Rs. 1,80,000 per annum. After applying the multiplier of 11, looking to the age of injured, then it comes to Rs. 19,80,000 under the head of future loss of earnings. The medical bills discarded by the Tribunal is on incorrect footing and the finding that the name of the doctor was not mentioned on the said bills is perverse. If we accept the medical bills, Exh. P933 to Exh. P1017, thereby total sum of medical expenses comes to Rs. 6,34,018. For pain and suffering, in the considered opinion of this court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is less, therefore, under the said head Rs. 50,000 is awarded. For future attendant charges the amount is required to be awarded because the injured cannot fulfill the daily requirement on his own to live his life, therefore, Rs. 2,00,000 is awarded by depositing the said amount and from the interest thereon the attendant may be made available to the injured for whole life. Similarly, he is required to undergo physiotherapy for whole life, therefore, Rs. 1,00,000 under the said head deserves to be awarded in addition to maintaining the amount as awarded by the Tribunal. 2,00,000 is awarded by depositing the said amount and from the interest thereon the attendant may be made available to the injured for whole life. Similarly, he is required to undergo physiotherapy for whole life, therefore, Rs. 1,00,000 under the said head deserves to be awarded in addition to maintaining the amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the sum comes as under: On reducing the amount of Rs. 17,70,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal net enhancement comes to Rs. 12,35,944. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. Appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 12,35,944 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Out of the said amount Rs. 3,00,000 be kept in the fixed deposit and from the interest thereof the appellant can maintain by keeping an attendant and may undergo physiotherapy. The remaining amount be disbursed to the family of the appellant in cash. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. It is made clear here that in the present case on the enhanced amount court-fee is leviable which shall be payable before the Claims Tribunal, however, after payment of the court-fee claimants would be entitled to get such amount. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.