JUDGMENT : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal arises from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court at Karnataka in a First Appeal against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”), Kodagu at Madikeri. 4. The High Court has enhanced the compensation of Rs. 10,40,000 awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000 while confirming the award of interest at 6% per annum. 5. The appellant, who was 44 years of age, met with an accident on 21 June 2008 while proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration no. GDG-6958. While he was travelling on Madikeri-Mysore Road, a Maruti van, bearing registration no. KA-12N-5305 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which the appellant suffered grievous injuries. He was hospitalized for about twenty days in the ICU. At the time of the accident, the appellant was running a home stay and is stated to have been conducting treks for foreign tourists. 6. The appellant made a claim for compensation before the MACT. By its order dated 10 December 2012, the MACT held that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle. In regard to the nature of the injuries, the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the condition of the appellant. It would be instructive to extract from the decision of the Tribunal: “10. At Ex.P-9 the petitioner has produced wound certificate obtained from the District hospital, Madikeri. The evidence on record discloses that the petitioner was first taken to the District hospital, Madikeri and then to K.M.C. hospital, Manglore and thereafter to Christian Medical College, Vellore. In Ex.P.9 it is mentioned that multiple abrasions on the face, arms and trunk and fracture of the mandible were seen. It also discloses that contusions in the left seen. 11. At Ex.P-10 discharge summary obtained from K.M.C hospital, Mangalore and at Ex.P-11 one abstained from the Christian Medical College, Vellore are produced. PW-2 is a Neuro surgeon from K.M.C. hospital, Mangalore. He has stated that the condition of the petitioner was critical when he was brought to the hospital, that his eyes were not opening, that he was not verbalizing, he was just moving in the upper limbs that pain and his neurological status was poor. PW-2 is a Neuro surgeon from K.M.C. hospital, Mangalore. He has stated that the condition of the petitioner was critical when he was brought to the hospital, that his eyes were not opening, that he was not verbalizing, he was just moving in the upper limbs that pain and his neurological status was poor. Then he has deposed that CT scan disclosed multiple contusions of the brain. Further he has deposed that surgery was done for mandible fracture. 12. In the discharge summary Ex.P-10 under the heading FINAL DIAGNOSIS it is mentioned as follows: “RTA with CEREBRAL EDEMA WITH MULTIPLE CONTUSIONS WITH DISPLACED SEGMENTAL FRACTURE OF MANDIBBLE” 13. In Ex.P-11 under the heading Diagnosis, it is mentioned as follows: “TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY SEQUELAE” 14. Ex.P-10 discloses that the mandible was fractured. In Ex.P-11 under the heading ‘Central nervous system examination’ it is mentioned though the petitioner was understanding the commands, his response was delayed and inconsistent, attention span was 5-10 minutes, long term memory was intact and short term memory was affected. Then it is mentioned as follows: “Right sided orbicularis oris weak.” Further it is mentioned that bilateral neck movements and shrugging of shoulders were weak. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was moderately dependent for everything and he was taught timed voiding for bladder. 15. PW-2 has further deposed that recovery was not complete and petitioner was not able to verbalize and he was hemi paralytic. Further he has deposed that at the time of discharge the petitioner was able to stand only with support but was not able to walk and was on wheel chair. Then he has deposed that there would be some psychological deficit for which the petitioner has to undergo neurological assessment. It is also stated by him that only the left hand of the petitioner can be moved. 16. At Ex.P-12 a certificate obtained from the Christian Medical College, Vellore is produced. In that it is stated that the petitioner is dependent for all his activities of daily living and he has severe memory loss. 17. Ex.P-13 is an Evaluation report obtained from the all India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore. In that it is mentioned that the petitioner has difficulty in speaking and he comprehends complex verbal commands.” 7. The above findings of the Tribunal were based on the evidence on record. 17. Ex.P-13 is an Evaluation report obtained from the all India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore. In that it is mentioned that the petitioner has difficulty in speaking and he comprehends complex verbal commands.” 7. The above findings of the Tribunal were based on the evidence on record. In support of the claim for compensation, the appellant adduced the evidence of Dr. Muralidar Pal K. (PW-2), the Neuronsurgeon who treated the appellant. The appellant also relied on the affidavit of his own brother who deposed to the physical condition of the appellant in the following terms: “The petitioner was in the ICU from 21.06.2008 to 07.07.2008. He underwent a surgery on his jaw. He regained consciousness only after about a month after the accident. Petitioner even now is suffering from memory loss. He has lost his ability to read and write. He has lost his ability to recognize people. He requires attention and care throughout his waking hours. His personal cares have to be attended to. He has no strength in his right hand. Some person has to keep an eye on him. If he is left unattended there are chance he will walk out of the house without him being aware of his own actions. As per the Doctor’s report dated 18.02.2009, the petitioner suffers from severe memory loss, inattention and visuo-spatial problems because of brain damage. The accident to the petitioner is so severe, the petitioner had lost control of his bowel movements and adult diapers and underpants had to be used till February 2009.” 8. The appellant produced a certificate of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Unit-I of Christian Medical College, Vellore and an evaluation report of the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing. These reports are respectively dated 18 February 2009 and 13 October 2011. Both the reports are indicative of the fact that the appellant continues to suffer from severe memory loss and visuo-spatial problems because of the brain damage sustained by him. The appellant has suffers from a partial paralytic condition. The record indicates that the appellant has a significant deficit in memory, reading, writing and expressive speech. The appellant suffers from a severe physical disability. 9. On this state of record we have no manner of doubt in coming to the conclusion that the appellant suffers from a complete of total functional disability. 10. The record indicates that the appellant has a significant deficit in memory, reading, writing and expressive speech. The appellant suffers from a severe physical disability. 9. On this state of record we have no manner of doubt in coming to the conclusion that the appellant suffers from a complete of total functional disability. 10. The Tribunal computed the income of the appellant at Rs. 20,000 per month. It did not accept the claim that his monthly income was Rs. 30,000 at the time of the accident on 21 June 2008. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was unable to assess the extent of disability since PW-2 stated that the neurological assessment would be required to be done. In the absence of specific medical evidence on this aspect, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 towards loss of future earnings. The Tribunal arrived at the following computation of the compensation to be awarded to the appellant: Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/- Medical and other expenses Rs. 2,20,000/- Loss of earnings during the period of treatment Rs. 1,20,000/- Loss of future earning Rs. 5,00,000/- Total Rs. 10,40,000/- 11. The High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded by a further amount of Rs. 1,50,000. 12. A significant aspect of the present case is that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have come to the conclusion that the appellant is dependent for all his activities of daily living and is suffering from a severe memory loss. The finding of the High Court in that regard is unexceptionable. However, having arrived at these findings, both the Tribunal and the High Court ought to have embarked upon a proper methodology for computing the compensation, consistent with the law which holds the field. There has been an omission to do so. 13. We have proceeded on basis of a monthly income of Rs. 20,000 and a multiplier of 15. 14. The appellant is granted compensation quantified at Rs. 33.60 lakhs. We accordingly modify the order which has been passed by the High Court. We direct that the compensation awarded to the appellant shall stand enhanced to Rs. 33.60 lakhs. The appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation so awarded. Since the compensation awarded by the High Court was Rs. 33.60 lakhs. We accordingly modify the order which has been passed by the High Court. We direct that the compensation awarded to the appellant shall stand enhanced to Rs. 33.60 lakhs. The appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation so awarded. Since the compensation awarded by the High Court was Rs. 11.90 lakhs, the enhanced compensation which has been awarded by this Court shall be invested in a fixed deposit of a nationalized bank. The Tribunal had directed that an amount of Rs. 9,00,000 be kept in fixed deposit while the balance shall be handed over to the appellant. We direct that, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,00,000, the enhanced amount which has been awarded by this Court shall also be kept in fixed deposit of a nationalised bank. The interest shall be paid over on a monthly basis directly to the appellant so as to meet the requirements of his upkeep and maintenance for a period of ten years. The fixed deposit shall be for a term which carries the maximum interest and shall be renewed periodically thereafter. After the lapse of ten years, the entire amount which lies in fixed deposit shall be paid over to the appellant. As directed by the Tribunal, the fixed deposit receipts shall not be used as security for any loan. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from today. 15. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.