JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 19.12.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC No. 1212/2000. 2. Brief facts noticed are that on 12.3.2000 at about 12:30 PM when the appellant, who is aged about 30 years, was said to be going from his factory on his motorcycle to mandi, at that time one more person was with him. When he reached near shivalay, adjacent to the petrol pump, one tractor in which lorry was also attached, bearing no. RJ 05 1R 0369, came in high speed, in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle where the appellant was sitting and consequent to which he suffered several injuries on his head, right leg and on the back, and it was claimed that on account of the grievous injuries suffered, he got totally disabled and the Medical Board has taken permanent physical disability to be 100%. The Tribunal taking into consideration all the facts and material on record allowed Rs. 10,52,000/-, which is assailed herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the Tribunal has accepted that there was 100% permanent physical disability and it has been expressed by the Medical Board of S.M.S. Hospital that the appellant received injury in "thoracic vertebra-12 (T-12 and D-12), compression fraction and dislocation thereof, and thoracic vertebra-11", and consequent thereto there is complete "paraplegia" and the appellant is unable to even get up on his own and move even sides during sleep, and has been rendered totally bedridden. Consequent thereto, while he was working in a factory and was earning Rs. 8,000/-, but his life has come to a standstill and he is unable to do anything in life. He further contended that Dr. M.R. Goyal of S.M.S. Hospital, came in the witness-box and even he has opined that the appellant would be unable to lead his normal life and will require an attendant for day to day needs and all purposes. He further contended that though his earning was shown to be Rs. 8000/-, but the income was adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 3000/- only. He further contended that the other amounts allowed on non-pecuniary heads, is meager and very low, particularly the fact that when the doctor himself has opined that a dependant would be required for life, the amount allowed at Rs. 8000/-, but the income was adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 3000/- only. He further contended that the other amounts allowed on non-pecuniary heads, is meager and very low, particularly the fact that when the doctor himself has opined that a dependant would be required for life, the amount allowed at Rs. 1000/- adding the same in his monthly income, is insufficient and quite low. He further contended that other amount for pains and suffering at Rs. 1,00,000/- is grossly low, as his pains and suffering cannot be assessed in terms of money. He contended that the amount allowed on account of loss of amenities and other factors need to be considered particularly in such a case where he has lost everything and being aged about 30 years had full life to go. Learned counsel further contended that though he has wife and four children, but because of his injury, the entire family has suffered and, therefore, the compensation is required to be enhanced, taking into consideration the judgments rendered in the case of Kavita v. Deepak & Others 2012 ACJ 2061 , and also in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Others 1995 ACJ 366 , where huge amount of claim was allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the incident is of the year 2000, therefore, claim allowed of more than Rs. 10,50,000/-, cannot be said to be low or meager, particularly when the Tribunal has taken into consideration the various factors, and the said amount is even otherwise quite excessive. He further contended that the facts in the case of Kavita v. Deepak (supra) are distinguishable, as in that case it was proved on record that appellant had taken treatment in various hospitals of Indore, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and in other prominent hospitals incurring huge amount and after visiting more than ten doctors. Therefore, he contended that the judgments are distinguishable on facts. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and admittedly the respondent has not adverted adversely to the factum that the accident did occur and all factors have been by and large accepted by the respondent except the compensation part. 6. Therefore, he contended that the judgments are distinguishable on facts. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and admittedly the respondent has not adverted adversely to the factum that the accident did occur and all factors have been by and large accepted by the respondent except the compensation part. 6. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant portions of Medical Report (Ex.1) issued by the Medical Board of S.M.S. Hospital:- "(b) Fracture D12 Vertibra with complete paraplegia with 100% permanent disability in lower limbs with fecal and urinary incontinence. (d) Injured will be dependent on others even for passing stool and urine. Aggregate of permanent physical impairment 100%." 7. Thus, admittedly as per the Medical Board certificate the permanent physical disability is shown to be 100% and the certificate is of the S.M.S. Hospital, a Govt. Hospital cannot be discarded, rather the Tribunal has also relied upon the said medical certificate. Equally important is the fact that Dr. M.R. Goyal from the S.M.S. Hospital came in the witness-box as AW.4, and on the same lines has expressed that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 100% and would be unable to lead a proper life and would be dependant on various persons, even for routine day to day needs in daily life. 8. Certainly when medical certificate as well as the doctor has expressed the opinion, who can be said to be technical expert in their own field, this court has no option except to accept the finding of the Medical Board certificate as also statements of the Doctor. 9. Now coming to the fact that what should be the adequate compensation in such a case, however, no amount of compensation can be said to be adequate particularly for a person who suffered so badly on account of the unfortunate accident. It is also a matter of fact that the incident is of the year 2000 when the amount of Rs. 10,52,000/- has been allowed by the Tribunal, however, in my view insofar as adopting of income is concerned, no material was placed on record as to the earning of appellant to the extent of Rs. 8000/-, and the Tribunal has taken into consideration the said amount as Rs. 10,52,000/- has been allowed by the Tribunal, however, in my view insofar as adopting of income is concerned, no material was placed on record as to the earning of appellant to the extent of Rs. 8000/-, and the Tribunal has taken into consideration the said amount as Rs. 3000/-, which in my view cannot be said to be low and is based on the minimum wages which were being earned by a person at the relevant time. Therefore, insofar as income is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere. 10. However, taking into consideration the over-all other facts, circumstances and record including the disability suffered by the appellant, and in the light of judgments of Kavita v. Deepak and R.D. Hattandari v. Pest Control (supra), in my view the amount is certainly required to be enhanced to a reasonable extent. In my view, the Tribunal has not considered any expenditure on account of future medical expenses which in my view, would certainly be required to be incurred by the appellant and his family members, though there may not be any evidence placed on record in these proceedings by the counsel, but certainly the disability which has been caused/suffered will require medical expenses to be incurred over the years, and in my view it would be appropriate to allow an amount of Rs. 1.5 lac towards future medical expenses. Accordingly, the same is directed to be allowed. 11. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the amount allowed to the attendant @ Rs. 1000/- per month and which has been added as income of the appellant, which in my view is certainly on the lower side and it can reasonably be expected that an attendant attending the appellant would at-least be paid an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month. Accordingly, Rs. 500/- be additionally allowed and will be taken as part of the income of appellant as directed by the Tribunal. The amount in this regard computes at Rs. 8,64,000/- as against Rs. 7,68,000/- and would be enhanced by Rs. 96,000/- (500 x 12 x 16 = 96,000/-). 12. In my view, on account of mental agony, pains and suffering, loss of amenities etc., which the Tribunal has allowed, certainly appears to be on the lower side, and in my view taking into consideration the age of appellant, it would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs. 96,000/- (500 x 12 x 16 = 96,000/-). 12. In my view, on account of mental agony, pains and suffering, loss of amenities etc., which the Tribunal has allowed, certainly appears to be on the lower side, and in my view taking into consideration the age of appellant, it would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs. 1.5 lac each for mental agony, pains and suffering and also loss of amenities separately from Rs. 1,00,000/- each i.e. it would be Rs. 3 lac as against Rs. 2 lac. Accordingly in my view, ends of justice would be met by allowing the claim as aforesaid. The enhanced compensation is re-worked hereunder:- (a) Future medical expenses 1,50,000 (b) Additional amount for attendant 0,96,000 (c) Additional amount on account of: Pains and suffering 50,000 Loss of amenities 50,000 Enhanced amount 3,46,000 13. Interest @ 6% will be awarded by the Insurance Company from the date the application was filed before Tribunal, will however be allowed on the other heads which has been allowed by this order, except on the future medical expenses. 14. Out of the enhanced amount as aforesaid, an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- plus interest, would be invested by the Tribunal in Monthly Income Scheme with the nearest Post Office from the residence of claimant-appellant for a period of five years. The balance amount with interest would be given to the claimant-appellant Sitaram by account payee cheque/bank draft. It is made clear that the appellant will be allowed interest only as aforesaid on MIS for the maintenance of his family, education, medical etc. etc. and will not be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with the Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. The above exercise is to be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******