JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J (Oral) - This order shall dispose of FAO Nos.5178, 5179 and 4893 of 2011, as the same arise from the same accident. FAO Nos.5178 and 5179 of 2011 have been filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, it was not fair and just for the Tribunal to have fastened 100% liability on the driver of the tractor trolley. FAO No.4893 of 2011 has been filed by the claimant-Prem Kumar for enhancement of compensation. In this accident, Prem Kumar and Subhash Chand were injured. FAO Nos.5178-79 of 2011 Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that even if the facts as pleaded in the claim petition are accepted as gospel truth, yet it has come on record that at about 2.30 AM at night, TATA 407 vehicle, being driven by Prem Kumar collided suddenly with the parked tractor trolley. As per the counsel, even if it was taken that the tractor trolley was wrongly parked on the middle of the road, TATA 407 vehicle cannot escape some liability. As per him, even at night the head lights of TATA 407 vehicle would illuminate the road for at-least 50 yards and if a person is carefully driving a vehicle, he would see that some vehicle has been parked at the road and would take evasive action accordingly. 2. Counsel for the respondents have argued that the owner and the driver had not only not taken any plea of contributory negligence but they denied the very accident. No evidence was led by them to prove this version and consequently, the same cannot be looked at by this Court. In the facts of the present case, I take the negligence to be 80:20 that is to say 20% liability of Prem Kumar driver of TATA 407 vehicle and consequently, the compensation awarded, as far as Prem Kumar is concerned, be reduced by 20%, while that of Subhash Chand would be apportioned between the two Insurance Companies in the proportion 80:20. Since the awarded compensation has been paid, the appellant-Bajaj Allianz Company would be entitled to recover 20% of the compensation paid for Subhash Chand from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company the insurer of TATA 407 vehicle. With this modification in the Award, FAO Nos.5178 and 5179 of 2011 stand disposed of. FAO No.4893 of 2011 3. Since the awarded compensation has been paid, the appellant-Bajaj Allianz Company would be entitled to recover 20% of the compensation paid for Subhash Chand from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company the insurer of TATA 407 vehicle. With this modification in the Award, FAO Nos.5178 and 5179 of 2011 stand disposed of. FAO No.4893 of 2011 3. This appeal has been filed by Prem Kumar-injured for enhancement of compensation. Counsel for the claimant has argued that the compensation awarded is highly inadequate. The claimant was 26 years old when he met with the accident in 2008 and has suffered 100% disability. This fact has not been denied. As per him, for 100% disability, a sum of Rs.2 lacs had to be awarded and, therefore, it has to be held that nothing has been awarded on account of pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of amenities of life and attendant expenses both uptil now and for future medical treatment. 4. I find this to be correct. Prem Kumar was the driver of TATA 407 vehicle and it was claimed that his income was Rs.7,000/- per month. However, no proof has been placed on record. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra, [2013(6) Law Herald (SC) 4871 : 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 293 (SC)] : 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 871 where the income of a driver in the year 2006 was taken at Rs.6,000/- per month, and states that in the year 2004, the income must be taken to be more. 5. I accept this argument and take the income at Rs.6500/- per month. Since the appellant was 26 years of age, he would be entitled to 50% as future prospects. Since he suffered 100% disability, the entire income worked out would be loss of income and multiplier of 17 would be applicable in the present case. I further award a sum of Rs.1 lac for pain, and suffering, Rs.1 lac for loss of amenities of life and Rs.1 lac for future medical expenses. 6. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant needs a constant medical attendant. I further award a sum of Rs.1 lac for pain, and suffering, Rs.1 lac for loss of amenities of life and Rs.1 lac for future medical expenses. 6. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant needs a constant medical attendant. For the last six years, I award an amount of Rs.6 lacs for medical attendant, and for the future, I direct the Insurance Company to make a fixed deposit of Rs.10 lacs in a nationalized bank in the name of the appellant, which would remain in custody of the Insurance Company. The appellant would be entitled to monthly interest accrued thereon and in the event of his death, the Bank is directed to encash the said fixed deposit in favour of the Insurance Company. Rate of interest would remain un-changed. 7. It is further clarified that all the different amounts of compensation would be subject to a reduction of 20% in view of the finding that Prem Kumar was himself guilty of negligence to the extent of 20%. Further the Insurance Company would be entitled to set off 20% of the compensation paid under the original Award out of the amount now payable. Apart from the amount awarded for medical attendant from 2008 to 2014, the entire amount would be put in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank and the claimant would be entitled to monthly/quarterly interest thereof. He would be entitled to withdraw any amount after seeking permission of the Tribunal. After his death, the amount which falls to his share would obviously be released to his legal representative/s. 8. With this modification in the Award, FAO No.4893 of 2011 stands disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ------------------