JUDGMENT : H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. The appellants have filed these appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Court of Fast Track Court and Member, Addl. MACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short), in MVC No.231/2014 on 22-12-2014. 2. The appellant in MFA No. 100559/2015 has prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award under appeal, whereas the appellant in MFA No. 101249/2015 has prayed for enhancement of the compensation by modifying the judgment and award under appeal. 3. In appellant in MFA No. 100559/2015, which is the Insurance Company, was the respondent No. 2 in the Tribunal below. The said appellant in the present appeal has contended that the Tribunal below has grossly erred in assessing the neurological disability of the claimant to the extent of 80%, in the absence of any disability certificate issued by the Neurologist or any evidence tendered before the MACT by the Neurologist with regard to the neurological disability. The Tribunal ought to have discard the evidence of PW2, who was an Orthopaedician. It has further erred in adding 50% of the salary towards future prospects of the injured, which is against the principle of law. Assessing the disability at 80% by Tribunal is also erroneous. Further, stating that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is exorbitant, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and award under appeal. 4. The appellant in MFA No. 101249/2015 was the claimant in the Tribunal below. The said appellant in his memorandum of appeal has stated that the injured was doing food grains business and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The award is liable to be enhanced by considering the loss of earning capacity at 100%. Further stating that the compensation awarded under various heads are also meager, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation by a sum of Rs. 33,82,870/-. 5. On notice being issued, respondent No. 1 in MFA No. 100559/2015 and respondent No. 2 in MFA No. 101249/2015 are served and appeared through their learned Counsel. Notice to the respondent No. 2 in MFA No. 100559/2015 and respondent No. 1 in MFA No. 101249/2015, who was placed ex parte before the Tribunal below, was dispensed with. The lower courts records were called for and the same are placed before us. 6. Notice to the respondent No. 2 in MFA No. 100559/2015 and respondent No. 1 in MFA No. 101249/2015, who was placed ex parte before the Tribunal below, was dispensed with. The lower courts records were called for and the same are placed before us. 6. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the entire materials placed before this Court. 7. The points that arise for our consideration are : i. Whether the appellant has made out grounds to allow MFA No. 100559/2015? ii. Whether the appellant has made out grounds to allow MFA No. 101249/2015? Since these points are interrelated to each other, in order to avoid repetition of analysis of facts, both the points are taken up together for analysis. For the sale of convenience, the parties would be referred to with the rankings they were holding in the Tribunal below. 8. MFA No. 101249/2015 is a claimant's appeal, who has prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below. MFA No. 100559/2015 is an appeal by the respondent No. 2-insurer. However, the said insurer nowhere in his appeal has disputed the finding of the Tribunal below about the occurrence of the accident as alleged injuries in the accident and also the Tribunal affixing the liability to pay compensation upon the respondents jointly and severally and further directing the respondent No. 2-insurer to pay the awarded amount by depositing it in the Tribunal. As such, the point of occurrence of accident as alleged by the claimant and the responsibility of the respondents to pay the compensation, is not in dispute. The only point in contest is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the point of occurrence of accident and the liability of the respondents to compensate the claimant need not be appreciated again. 9. The Tribunal below in its impugned judgment and award has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum mentioned against them : Sl.No. Head Amount( Rs.) 1 Pain and suffering 1,00,000.00 2 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 1,00,000.00 3 Medical expenses incurred 1,93,730.00 4 Incidental expenses 30,000.00 5 Loss of income during laid up and rest period 27,000.00 6 Compensation towards loss of future income 11,66,400.00 Total 16,17,130.00 It is the said quantum awarded by the Tribunal that is disputed by both the claimant and the Insurance Company. 10. 10. According to the claimant, the compensation awarded towards ' pain and suffering-is inadequate. Except stating that the sum awarded is not reasonable, the claimant has not substantiated his contention to show that the compensation awarded under the said head was not reasonable. The compensation has been awarded under the said head towards the injuries sustained by the claimant, due to which he has suffered pain. The evidence of PW1 corroborated by the wound certificate at Exhibit P6 shows that the injured, in the road traffic accident dated 16-10-2011, had sustained following injuries : i. Left frontal scalp heamatoma with abrasion 3 x 4 cms. ii. Left maxillary and right maxillary contusion. iii. Abrasion over chin 2 x 3 cms. iv. Multiple abrasions over dorsum of left hand and 3rd/4th fingers. v. Abrasion over anterior-lateral aspect of middle of left leg. vi. Swelling over lateral aspect of right infra clavicular region and vii. Patient comatose with Diffuse Axonal Head injury and multiple facial and orbital fractures. The said wound certificate further shows that among the above injuries, injury Nos. 1 to 6 are simple in nature and injury No. 7 is grievous. PW2 - the doctor, has also stated about the same injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant, in his evidence. In normal practise, for the first simple injury, a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- will be awarded and for additional simple injuries, it will be at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per injury. Accordingly, for the six simple injuries, in total the claimant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 19,000/- ( Rs. 4,000 + Rs. 15,000/- ( Rs. 3,000 x 5) = Rs. 19,000/-). The 7th injury is stated to be Diffuse Axcnal Head injury and multiple facial and orbital fractures. The hospital discharge cards at exhibits P7, P8, P9 and P10, show that the injured was admitted to the hospital on three occasions and underwent treatment as an inpatient for a long period. The injury said to have been resulted into permanent partial disability of the claimant. Considering this aspect, the Tribunal below has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. Therefore, after deducting Rs. 19,000/- towards simple injuries, the rest of the amount of Rs. 81,000/- can be equated to the compensation towards grievous injury suffered by the claimant. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. Considering this aspect, the Tribunal below has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. Therefore, after deducting Rs. 19,000/- towards simple injuries, the rest of the amount of Rs. 81,000/- can be equated to the compensation towards grievous injury suffered by the claimant. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards ' pain and suffering is a reasonable and just compensation, which requires no enhancement. As such, the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant that the said compensation requires to be enhanced is not acceptable. 11. Towards the 'loss of amenities and future unhappiness', the Tribunal below has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. When compensation under specific heads like pain and suffering and loss of future income has been awarded, the compensation under one more head of future unhappiness ought not have been considered by the Tribunal below. However, considering the totality of the case and the circumstances of the case, we don't want to interfere in the said finding of the Tribunal below. 12. The claimant has prayed for enhancement of compensation under the head of 'medical expenses'. But admittedly, he has produced hospital records, medical bills and receipts, in total amounting to Rs. 1,93,730/-. From a perusal of those exhibits, which runs into 159 in number, it appears that the claimant has preserved every piece of paper and has produced the same before the Tribunal. As such, it cannot be presumed that he had incurred medical expenses more than as those documents reveal. The Tribunal below has rightly awarded the compensation towards medical expenses to the actual incurred by the claimant which is at Rs. 1,93,730/-. Thus we don't want to interfere in the said finding of the Tribunal below. 13. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- calling it as towards 'incidental expenses- (attendant, conveyance, nourishment etc.,). Except stating that, looking at the nature of the injuries and the nature of treatment, the said amount deserves to be awarded, the Tribunal has not attributed any reason justifying the said sum. A perusal of the hospital discharge cards at exhibits P7, P8, P9, and P10, go to show that the claimant was treated as an inpatient in the hospital for a period of 39+97+10+2=148 days. If the attendant's charges is taken at Rs. 100/- per day, the same would come to Rs. 14,800/-. A perusal of the hospital discharge cards at exhibits P7, P8, P9, and P10, go to show that the claimant was treated as an inpatient in the hospital for a period of 39+97+10+2=148 days. If the attendant's charges is taken at Rs. 100/- per day, the same would come to Rs. 14,800/-. Neither there is any evidence nor any document to show that the claimant was prescribed any special diet, for which he incurred any expenses. As such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below under the head 'incidental expenses', though appears to be a little bit on the higher side, we don't want to modify and reduce it. 14. The claimant at the time of accident was said to be working as a labour in Steel Sales Corporation, Hubli. The claimant in the claim statement and PW1 in his evidence, have stated that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs. 6,500/- per month. However, a certificate said to have been issued by his employer, which is marked at exhibit P12 by the claimant, shows that the claimant was working as Hamali, doing loading and unloading work in a shop and was getting an income of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Since the said employer was not examined and also based on the statement made in that exhibit P12 to the effect that the injured was working on daily basis, the Tribunal below has taken his income at Rs. 4,500/- per month. Though the claimant in his appeal has contended that he was doing food grains business and earning Rs. 6,500/- per month but the said statement is unbelievable for the reason that the claimant himself has stated in the Tribunal below that he was working as a labour and produced document at exhibit P12. Which shows that he was working as a Hamali on daily basis. Therefore, the contention of the claimant that he was doing food grains business and was earning Rs. 6,500/- per month cannot be believed. However, considering the nature of the work that was being done by the claimant and the year of the accident, we are of the view that the income of the claimant arrived at by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced and modified at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 15. The Tribunal below has awarded a compensation of Rs. 27,000/- towards 'loss of income during laid up and rest period'. 5,000/- per month. 15. The Tribunal below has awarded a compensation of Rs. 27,000/- towards 'loss of income during laid up and rest period'. The Tribunal has observed that the claimant must have undergone treatment for not less than a period of six months, as such at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month, it has awarded the said sum of Rs. 27,000/-. It is observed above that the claimant was treated as an inpatient in the hospital on four different occasions, for a total period of 148 days, which is shorter than six months period and very near to five month period. As such, at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is the assessed income of the claimant, for the period of five months, he would be entitled for a what is awarded by the Tribunal and what it was supposed to award being very small, we don't want to interfere in the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of earning during the period of treatment'. 16. The main contention of the respondent-Insurance Company is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded under the head 'loss of future income', for which purpose the Tribunal below has assessed the alleged disability of the claimant at 80% functional disability. After the Insurance Company has filed their appeal, the claimant has come up with his appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. One Sri. Husenkhan, said to be the father of the injured/claimant for examined as PW1. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that, due to the injury, his son i.e., the claimant is unable to carry on day to day activities without the support of the others and has become permanently disabled. He has also stated that he has lost his memory power and sensation in both his limbs and hands. He has stated that his son has suffered 100% disability. In his support, he has produced and got marked the wound certificate at exhibit P6, hospital discharge cards at exhibits P7, P8, P9 and P10, disability certificate at exhibit P11, case sheet at exhibit P15 and scanning reports at exhibit P16. The denial suggestions made to him in his cross-examination have not been admitted as true by the said witness. The claimant got examined one Dr. Manikya R. said to be an Orthopaedic surgeon at KIMS hospital, Hubli, as PW2. The denial suggestions made to him in his cross-examination have not been admitted as true by the said witness. The claimant got examined one Dr. Manikya R. said to be an Orthopaedic surgeon at KIMS hospital, Hubli, as PW2. The said doctor in his affidavit evidence has stated that he has gone through the medical records produced by the injured and has clinically examined the injured. A disability certificate was issued stating that the claimant's disability was assessed at 75% in relation to his both noticing that the medical evidence has stated that the disability was at 75% to the lower and upper limbs, however, added its own additional finding to it enhancing the disability. The reason given by the Tribunal for enhancing the disability than what the medical records was stating, was that during the evidence of PW1, the claimant was brought before the Tribunal in a wheel chair and the injured was not in a position to stand up from the wheel chair and also he was unable to stand up from the wheel chair without the assistance and support of others. In our view, the Tribunal has recorded what it observed in the Court proceedings. However, while appreciating the said observation, the Tribunal ought to have gone through the deposition of PW2 and the records placed before it thoroughly. When the evidence of PW2 and the records placed before the Tribunal below is analysed, the following points can be noticed : i. PW2 - Dr. Manikya R., is admittedly an Orthopaedic Surgeon, but not a Neurologist. Even according to his, as he stated in his cross-examination, the injured had not sustained any fracture in any of his limbs. ii. The treatment given to the injured in the hospital was for head injury by a Neuro Surgeon. The said treating doctor or any of the Neuro Surgeon or Neurologists have not been examined. iii. Admittedly, PW2 is not a treating doctor and that he has only assessed the disability from the orthopaedic point of view and more particularly, based on exhibit P11, which is the disability certificate. This fact has been very clearly elicited in the cross-examination of the said PW2-doctor. iv. PW2 in his examination-in-chief at para 5 has stated as below : "5. I further state that, on examination patient is having following points : 1. This fact has been very clearly elicited in the cross-examination of the said PW2-doctor. iv. PW2 in his examination-in-chief at para 5 has stated as below : "5. I further state that, on examination patient is having following points : 1. Complaint of pain while talking and it is difficult to open mouth while talking as well as intake food etc. 2. Could not sit without a support from lying down position. 3. Could not walk without support. 4. Decrease power in both lower limbs. 5. Loss of power in right upper limb. 6. Decrease power in left upper limb. 7. Loss of co-ordination in all for limbs."? The above statement witness in his examination-in-chief nowhere assess that it was an observation made by the doctor in his clinical examination. The doctor has kept it so vague calling it as ' patient is having following points'?, which does not necessarily mean that the patient is suffering with any of those ailments. A complaint by the injured, until it is clinically checked and confirmed, will remain only a complaint and it can never becomes ' a finding-of the doctor. In the instant case, the evidence of PW2 in his affidavit evidence, which is extracted above, is not his finding, rather it is a vague statement without any corroboration. v. The above finding at point (iv) gains further support by the fact that the records sent by the Tribunal below at page No. 134, gives two large size colour photographs of the injured/claimant. In one of the photographs, the claimant is shown to have sitting comfortably in an armed chair, without anybody's support. In the second photograph, the injured is standing next to his father, but without any support by his father, in that position. Had really the injured been unable to sit or stand, these photographs would not have come into existence. Theses photographs coupled with the evidence of PW2, which nowhere has stated that the injured cannot sit or stand, goes to show that the observation made by the Tribunal that the injured was brought on a wheel chair, though may be right, but finding that he was not in a position to stand up or sit, appears to be not correct. As such, the percentage of disability suo motto enhanced by the Tribunal was not warranted. Even after going through the evidence of PWs. As such, the percentage of disability suo motto enhanced by the Tribunal was not warranted. Even after going through the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and the medical records, the point the will not miss our attention is that, except a disability certificate at exhibit P11, no other hospital records speak about the alleged disability and its percentage. Even according to PW2-doctor, the disability certificate at exhibit P11 has been issued on an orthopaedic point of view, more importantly, the said disability, even according to PW2 is not to the whole body, but only confined to lower and upper limbs. This aspect, the Tribunal ought not to have overlooked. When the alleged physical impairment is said to be 75%, confining to lower limb and upper limb only, the percentage of disability to the whole body would be normally less than the said 75%. 17. For these reasons, though it can be held that the injured sustained some percentage of permanent disability, but the same can be taken in the present circumstances of the case only to the whole body. Therefore, the Tribunal assessing the disability at 80% and calculating the compensation with the figure and awarding compensation of Rs. 11,66,400/- requires to be re-looked. 18. PW1 has stated that the age of the injured was 18 years at the time of the accident. School leaving certificate of the claimant produced in the Tribunal below by his counsel, has shown his date of birth as 5-3-1992. As such, appropriately, the Tribunal has held the age of the injured as on the date of the accident at 19 years, which is not disputed by either side. The multiplier applicable to the said case is 18. The income of the claimant is taken at Rs. 5,000/- per month as observed above. For arriving at loss of future income, the Tribunal below has also calculated and added loss of future prospects at 50% to the annual income of the injured. Taking into consideration the alleged future prospects by the Tribunal was seriously disputed by the respondent-insurer in his appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent insurer who in his argument, relied upon an unreported order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a Civil Appeal Nos. 3409/2017, in the case Chikkamma and another v. Paravathamma and another, dated 28-2-2017 (Reported in AIR 2017 SC 1732 ). 3409/2017, in the case Chikkamma and another v. Paravathamma and another, dated 28-2-2017 (Reported in AIR 2017 SC 1732 ). The said case also was with respect to compensation in a motor accident claim case. Para 9 of the said order, towards which the learned counsel for the insurer drew our attention is reproduced herein below. "9. Taking into account the fact that the deceased was a self employed person and also as the question with regard to award of future prospects of a self employed person is presently pending before a larger Bench of this Court and as some enhancement of compensation has already been made by us, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case, the claim for future prospects ought not to be gone into by us. The said claim, therefore, is refused." 19. In view of the above said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, according to the learned counsel for the insurer, the Tribunal below has erred in including future prospects in the calculation of compensation. We have gone through the said order, the Hon'ble Apex Court, no doubt has not awarded any compensation under the head 'future prospects', though one of the reason for it was pendency of the said question with regard to award of future prospects of self-employed person, before larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The other reason was that, already some enhancement of compensation was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case and considering the facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court did not award compensation under the head 'loss of future prospects'. 20. In the case on hand, since the percentage of alleged disability is being reduced from 80% to 60% and in the absence of enhancement of compensation under any other head, there will be no enhancement in the total compensation that may be awarded to the claimant. As such, the facts and circumstances of the present case differs from the facts and circumstances in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. In several of these types of cases, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, is considering awarding the compensation under the head 'loss of future prospects' also. As such, the facts and circumstances of the present case differs from the facts and circumstances in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. In several of these types of cases, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, is considering awarding the compensation under the head 'loss of future prospects' also. For this reason, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has committed any error in awarding the compensation under the head 'loss of future prospects' also. 21. Therefore, in the case on hand also, 50% of the annual assessed income of the injured to be added to his income as 'loss of future prospects'. Thus, Rs. 60,000 + Rs. 30,000 = Rs. 90,000/- would be his loss of annual income. When it is multiplied with the multiplier 18, 60% of the same would come to Rs. 9,72,000/- ( Rs. 90,000 x 18 x 60/100). Since the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 11,66,400/-, under the head 'compensation towards loss of future income', the same being without any basis and is on higher side, is required to be reduced and fixed at Rs. 9,72,000/-. 22. Barring the above, the claimants are not entitled to compensation under any other heads. 23. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 14,22,730/- as shown below: Sl. No. Head Amount(Rs.) 1 Pain and suffering 1,00,000.00 2 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 1,00,000.00 3 Medical expenses incurred 1,93,730.00 4 Incidental expenses 30,000.00 5 Loss of income during laid up and rest period 27,000.00 6 Compensation towards loss of future income 9,72,000.00 Total 14,22,730.00 24. From the above finding, it is clear that the claimant since has not made out any grounds to enhance the compensation, his appeal MFA No. 101249/2015 has no grounds to allow it. On the other hand, the appellant in MFA No. 100559/2015 has made out some grounds, though not for setting aside entire judgment and award, but for allowing the appeal in part by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below. 25. Accordingly, we answer point No. 1 partly in the affirmative, point No. 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order : ORDER 26. MFA No. 100559/2015 is allowed in part. 25. Accordingly, we answer point No. 1 partly in the affirmative, point No. 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order : ORDER 26. MFA No. 100559/2015 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 22-12-2014 passed by the Court of Fast Track and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, in MVC No. 231/2014, is modified and the total compensation of Rs. 16,17,130/- awarded by the Tribunal below is reduced and limited to Rs. 14,22,730/- (Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Only). 27. The order of the Tribunal with respect to fixation of liability upon the respondents therein, rate of interest, mode and manner of release of the deposit amount, if any, remains unaltered. 28. MFA No. 101249/2015 is dismissed. 29. There is no order as to costs. 30. Registry to send of this judgment to the Tribunal with its records.