JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. The judgment and award dated 30-1-2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, in MVC No. 761/2012 is called in question in this appeal by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellant herein is the injured and he was the claimant before the tribunal below. He was awarded the total compensation of Rs. 8,95,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. It is most unfortunate that the appellant/claimant has suffered traumatic paraplegia as a result of the accident that occurred on 8-6-2012. It is needless to observe that the appellant has sustained severe head injury resulting in traumatic paraplegia. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was admitted to B.G.S. Apollo Hospital, Mysuru. He was inpatient from 28-6-2012 to 11-7-2012. At the time of discharge from the hospital, he was advised for follow up treatment. Hence, he had been taking the treatment subsequently. The tribunal below has awarded Rs. 75,000/- under the head pain and agony, Rs. 4,00,000/- under the head medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- under the head incidental expenses, Rs. 3,45,600/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs. 50,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Thus, in all, the tribunal below has awarded Rs. 8,95,600/- as compensation. On going through the materials on record and after hearing the advocates on both sides, we are of the clear opinion that the compensation needs to be enhanced to certain extent inasmuch as the compensation awarded by the tribunal below is on the lower side. 2. Ex. P.6 is the wound certificate issued by the B.G.S. Apollo Hospital, Mysuru which shows that the appellant/claimant has suffered axonal injury, metacarpal bone fracture of the right hand, right zygomatic maxilla complex fracture and left side femur haemiperesis. The doctor has opined that all these injuries are grievous in nature. Exs. P. 10 and P. 11 are the records showing that the appellant was inpatient from 8-6-2012 till 28-6-2012 and again, he was admitted on the same day and continued under the treatment till 11-7-2012. The nature of treatment also discloses that the appellant has undergone internal fixation for the fractured bone and also right zygomatic complex fracture. The appellant was advised physiotherapy treatment till he recovers completely. Though at the time of discharge, the appellant was conscious, he needed long rehabilitation. Ex. The nature of treatment also discloses that the appellant has undergone internal fixation for the fractured bone and also right zygomatic complex fracture. The appellant was advised physiotherapy treatment till he recovers completely. Though at the time of discharge, the appellant was conscious, he needed long rehabilitation. Ex. P.30 is the discharge card of B.GS. Apollo Hospital, Mysuru. Ex. P. 31 are the photographs (12 in number) along with CD of the petitioner to show his condition after the accident. 3. P.W.1 is the father of the appellant. According to him, the appellant was not able to identify any person and he was kept in ICU for few months; the appellant is not in a position to do any work and unable to recover from traumatic paraplegia; the appellant suffers 100% disability due to the injury and that the appellant is depending upon his family members and others. The doctor, who has treated the appellant at B.G.S. Apollo Hospital, Mysuru is examined as P.W.2. Even after the discharge, the appellant was examined by P.W.2; on 12-10-2012 and 30-11-2012, the appellant had come to B.G.S. Apollo Hospital for clinical examination, at that point of time, the said doctor assessed the disability suffered by the claimant. The doctor has noted the following; 1. The patient has reduced vision-right eye (CF at 2 mts) left eye (6/60)-60%) 2. He has left hemiparesis (left side weakness) and requires support for ambulation (50%) 3. He has memory impairment especially for immediate and recent memory (25%) and will require further evaluation by a clinical psychologist. 4. He requires support for all activities of daily living. The doctor has further opined that the claimant has suffered the permanent disability of 100% to the whole body in view of severity of head injury. Such disability is both functional and physical. The doctor has also deposed that the disability as assessed by him is based on World Health Organization guidelines for head injury. In the cross-examination, P.W. 2 has deposed that the claimant was an inpatient from 8-6-2012 to 28-6-2012 and thereafter, from 28-6-2012 to 11-7-2012. It means that though the appellant was discharged on 28-6-2012, he was re-admitted to the hospital immediately on the very day and at that very point of time i.e., on 28-6-2012. In the cross-examination, P.W. 2 has deposed that the claimant was an inpatient from 8-6-2012 to 28-6-2012 and thereafter, from 28-6-2012 to 11-7-2012. It means that though the appellant was discharged on 28-6-2012, he was re-admitted to the hospital immediately on the very day and at that very point of time i.e., on 28-6-2012. Such aspect of the matter is clarified by P.W. 2 inasmuch as the patient was not actually discharged from the hospital; the issuance of discharge summary in that fashion is the administrative policy of the said hospital. It is further deposed by the doctor that as on 30-11-2012, the treatment was not completed and even at the time of discharge i.e., on 22-12-2012, the treatment was being continued; the appellant needs psychological clinical evaluation also; the doctor has assessed 100% disability after examination of the patient on 30-11-2012; if the patient follows his guidance and psychological treatment, then there will be improvement in the health condition. He has denied the suggestion that he has assessed he disability to the said extent of 100% only to get the claimant more compensation. He has reiterated that he has reassessed the disability based on the World Health Organization guidelines for head injury. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is amply clear that undisputedly the claimant/appellant has suffered the head injury which has resulted in traumatic paraplegia; he has been suffering from traumatic paraplegia both functionally and physically. He has to be dependent on the others throughout his life or till he recovers fully. 4. Though it is observed by the tribunal below that the age of the claimant was 23 years at the time of the accident, but we find from the records that the age of the victim was 19 years inasmuch as SSLC marks card (10th Standard) discloses the date of birth of the victim/appellant is on 1-6-1993. 5. The tribunal below has awarded the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and agony which appears to be too less. The claimant has to suffer pain and agony through out his life. He has suffered not only during the treatment but subsequent too. Therefore, interest of justice is met, in case Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded under this head i.e., pain and agony, instead of Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the tribunal. We find that the award of compensation under the head medical expenses at Rs. He has suffered not only during the treatment but subsequent too. Therefore, interest of justice is met, in case Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded under this head i.e., pain and agony, instead of Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the tribunal. We find that the award of compensation under the head medical expenses at Rs. 4,00,000/- is just and reasonable inasmuch the same is based on the records. Hence, no interference is called for in that regard. Further, Rs. 25,000/- awarded under the head incidental expenses is also on the lesser side having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is but natural that he requires better food and huge amount towards incidental expenses since he is a traumatic paraplegia patient. He requires nursing through out his life. Therefore, he is awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head incidental expenses instead of Rs. 25,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal below has further assessed the income of the claimant notionally at Rs. 2,000/- per month and having concluded that the claimant has got the disability at 80% which had affected his future earnings and also his enjoyment in life, the tribunal below has arrived at such conclusion. As mentioned supra, the claimant was just aged about 19 years at the time of accident. (Thus 18 is the multiplier to be adopted). The claimant is the diploma holder. The accident is of the year 2012. Notional income of any person is assessed by this Court generally in between Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 8,000/- p.m. in respect of the year 2013. In the absence of any record of income and as there is no exact figure relating to earning of the claimant and since he is the diploma holder, we may reasonably assess his income at Rs. 8,000/- per month. We agree with the conclusion reached by the tribunal that the appellant has suffered the disability at 80% both physical and functional. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 13,82,400/- under the head loss of future earning (i.e., 80% of Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 18). As mentioned supra, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 13,82,400/- as against Rs. 3,45,600/- awarded by the tribunal. In addition to the same, the claimant shall be awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head loss of future amenities inasmuch as the claimant has to suffer all through his life. 8,000/- x 12 x 18). As mentioned supra, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 13,82,400/- as against Rs. 3,45,600/- awarded by the tribunal. In addition to the same, the claimant shall be awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head loss of future amenities inasmuch as the claimant has to suffer all through his life. Virtually, he is dependent on the third parties. The entire future life is practically marred. His eye sight is diminished to the maximum extent. The tribunal below has erred in not awarding any compensation under the head future medical expenses only on the ground that no positive evidence is produced. Such observation of the tribunal below cannot be accepted. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the claimant has to take medications for long time to come. Therefore, he shall be awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- under the heard future medical expenses notionally. 6. In view of the same, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 24,32,400/- The tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,95,600/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 15,36,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. 7. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The award of the tribunal is modified to the above extent. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be released forthwith in favour of the claimant and remaining amount would be kept in FD in any nationalised bank for a period of five years. We make it clear that it is open for the claimant to draw interest accrued thereon periodically.