JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the award, dated 28.3.2013, passed by the Fast Track Court1 and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, whereby the learned Tribunal, has granted the compensation of Rs.5,90,000/-, along with an interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, the claimant appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 31.03.2012, at about 5.45 p.m., the claimant-appellant was proceeding on a motor bike from Kushalnagar towards Periyapatna. When he reached in front of Ganesh Distributor’s Shop, Periyapatna Town, at that time, a lorry, bearing registration No.TN-48/Q-3481, came from behind, in a rash and negligent manner, and overtook the said motor bike. Without giving any signal, the lorry suddenly stopped. Resultantly, the claimant-appellant dashed against the backside of the lorry. Due to the said impact, the claimant-appellant fell down, and sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Periyapatna for first aid treatment, and then shifted to the K.R.Hosptial, and thereafter to the J.S.S.Hospital at Mysore wherein he was treated as an inpatient. He spent huge amount towards conveyance, attendant charges, nourishing food, medical expenses, etc. After recovering from the injuries, he filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal, for claiming a compensation of Rs.46,30,000/-. To establish his case, he examined himself as PW1, and one Dr.T.S.Vasan, as PW2; he produced nineteen documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined one witness, and produced two documents. After considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.5,90,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant Ms.Suma Kedilaya is that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the notional income of the claimant appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month. As per the Schedule prepared by this Court, for the cases of Lok Adalath, for an accident of the year 2012, the notional income should be taken as Rs.7,000/-per month. 4. The Second contention is that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PRANAY SETHY [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], future prospects has to be taken into consideration, but the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. 5. 4. The Second contention is that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PRANAY SETHY [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], future prospects has to be taken into consideration, but the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. 5. The third contention is that the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the disability of the claimant appellant. According to Dr.Vasan (PW.2), who has examined the claimant-appellant, the disability is 100%, but the Tribunal has wrongly taken the disability as 50%. 6. The fourth contention is that on other conventional heads like, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and attendant charges, the learned Tribunal has granted a meagre compensation. Hence according to the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant the compensation deserves to be enhanced. 7. Per contra, Mr.H.N.Keshava Prashanth, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contends that the appellant has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month. He further contends that since the income of the claimant-appellant is not a fixed salary, it is only a notional income, therefore, he is not entitled to the future loss of income. Moreover, he contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the disability as 50%. Lastly, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, on the other conventional heads, is in accordance with law. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned award. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned award, and the original records. 9. In catena of decisions, this Court has followed the Schedule prepared for Lok-Adalath, in order to assess the notional income. As per the Schedule, for an accident of the year 2012, the notional income has been fixed as Rs.7,000/-. Since, in the present case, the accident was on 31.03.2012, the notional income of the appellant should be taken as Rs.7,000/-per mensum. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in taking the income of the claimant-appellant as Rs.4,000/-per month. The monthly income of the claimant-appellant is, therefore, increased from Rs.4,000/-to Rs.7,000/-per mensum. 10. In respect of disability, the appellant has examined Dr.T.S.Vasan as PW2. The witness has stated with respect to the treatment given by him to the petitioner for the injuries mentioned in wound certificate (Ex.P5), and in corroboration with Exs. The monthly income of the claimant-appellant is, therefore, increased from Rs.4,000/-to Rs.7,000/-per mensum. 10. In respect of disability, the appellant has examined Dr.T.S.Vasan as PW2. The witness has stated with respect to the treatment given by him to the petitioner for the injuries mentioned in wound certificate (Ex.P5), and in corroboration with Exs. P19 & 21 – 2 =+ 1 x-rays, Ex.P20 - 3 casesheets, Ex.P23 MLC register extract. P.W2 has further stated that at the time of admission the petitioner was having weakness in all the four limbs; MRI of the cervical spine was done on 02.04.2012. The Cervical Spinal Cord shows signal changes extending from C3 to C6 level appearing hyperintense in T2 suggestive of edema changes. Left paramedian disc ostephyte complex C3/C4 causing compression of left existing nerve rots. Posterior central disc herniation at C5/C56 causing compression of nerve roots. The petitioner was given emergency resuscitation as for cervical cord injury, and on 06.04.2012 he underwent discectormy for PIVD C56; post operatively the appellant improved partially in neurogological status. Further, he was readmitted on 16.04.2012, with a history of giddiness on sitting up, and with burning urination. He was discharged on 02.05.2012. Later, once again, he was readmitted on 26.06.2012, for recurrent urinary infection. After the necessary treatment, he was discharged on 05.07.2012. The petitioner has severe weakness in all limbs. Total incontinence urine and bowel, and he requires continuous nursing care, with one attender, even for all his hygiene and day-to-day living. The petitioner does not have any useful function in any of the limbs. As such, he is having a disability of 100%. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in taking 50% of the whole body disability. After considering the materials produced by the claimant-appellant and the testimony of the Dr.T.S.Vasan (PW2), this Court holds that there is 100% disability of the whole body. 11. The learned Tribunal has failed to consider the functional disabilities of the claimant appellant. Prior to the accident, the claimant appellant was doing subcontract work. In view of 100% disability, he cannot do the said work in future. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JAGDISH vs. MOHAN AND OTHERS (arising out of SLP(C) No.7739/2017, disposed of on 06.03.2018), following the judgment in PRANAY SETHY’s case (supra), in respect of the disabilities, held that the claimant is entitled for future prospects. 12. In view of 100% disability, he cannot do the said work in future. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JAGDISH vs. MOHAN AND OTHERS (arising out of SLP(C) No.7739/2017, disposed of on 06.03.2018), following the judgment in PRANAY SETHY’s case (supra), in respect of the disabilities, held that the claimant is entitled for future prospects. 12. In respect of future loss of income, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PRANAY SETHY’s case (supra) has held that for the age between 40 to 45, an addition of 25% has to be added to the income of the appellant/claimant. In the subsequent judgment, in the case of HEM RAJ vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2018 ACJ 5 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even for the notional income, the future prospects is required to be taken into account. The Apex Court opined as under: “11. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that in the light of the said judgment 40 per cent increase on estimated income towards future prospects is required to be taken into account as the deceased was 40 years of age. 12. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in absence of actual evidence of income the principle of adding on account of future prospects cannot be applied where income is determined by guesswork. 13. We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in the present case, addition of 40 per cent to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50 per cent while the High Court has deleted the same.” 13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PRANAY SETHY’s case (supra) and HEM RAJ’s case (supra), since the claimant-appellant is aged about 45 years, 25% of the income has to be added for loss of future prospects. 14. After considering the materials produced by the appellant, and the testimony of Dr.T.S.Vasan (PW2), this Court holds that the disability of the (appellant claimant) is 100%. 14. After considering the materials produced by the appellant, and the testimony of Dr.T.S.Vasan (PW2), this Court holds that the disability of the (appellant claimant) is 100%. Taking into account the income of the appellant as Rs.7,000/- per month, future loss as 25%, and disability as 100%, the loss of future earnings is recalculated as under: Monthly income 7,000/- Add: 25% towards future loss 1,750/- Total 8,750/- Actual annual income 1,05,000/- Multiplier 14 Loss of future earnings 1,05,000 x 14 x 100% Rs.14,70,000/- 15. In respect of other conventional heads, Dr.T.S.Vasan (PW.2), has opined that since the patient has severe weakness in all limbs, total incontinence to urine and bowel, he requires continuous nursing care with one attender even for all his personal hygiene and day today living, and since this Court also held that the disability of the appellant is 100%, the compensation for an attendant for life has to be recalculated. But the learned Tribunal has awarded a very meager compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘attendant charges and nourishing food’ and the same requires to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 16. The claimant-appellant was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. The lifespan of an average Indian can be taken as 77 years. He has to suffer the pain and suffering atleast for a period of 30 years, that too, depending on others. Therefore, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards ‘pain and suffering’ at Rs.1,00,000/- is on the lower side. The same is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. 17. The claimant-appellant, apart from suffering physical disability, pain and suffering, has also suffered mental agony, and he lost enjoyment of his life, which will be continued till the end of his life. For discomfort and loss of amenities of life, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very meager compensation of Rs.5,600/- and the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000-/. 18. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the claimant is hereby allowed. The award, dated 28.01.2013, stands modified as under: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 1,50,000/- Conveyance 5,000/- 5,000/- Attendant charges and nourishing food 15,000/- 50,000/- Medical expenses 1,12,400/- 1,12,400/- Loss of income during the period of treatment 16,000/- 28,000/- For future loss of income 3,36,000/- 14,70,000/- For discomfort and loss of amenities of life 5,600/- 30,000/- Total 5,90,000/- 18,45,400/- 19. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited by the Insurance Company shall be disbursed to the claimant appellant, after due verification of his identity.