JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (the Act) by the second respondent-insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1830/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 19/10/2019. The respondent herein is the claim petitioner, who filed Cross Objection No.55 of 2021. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claim petitioner, on 11/01/2016 at about 03:45 p.m., while he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51/ER-3294 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner through Magadi – Electronic City road and when they reached near Mylasandra Begur bridge, motorcycle overturned, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. 3. The first respondent-owner cum rider of the offending motorcycle remained ex-parte. 4. The second respondent-insurer of offending motorcycle filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant. 5. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A24 series were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the second respondent. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent-rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ?2,01,65,956/- together with interest along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the second respondent- insurer has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal and the cross objection is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged - Notional income It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the second respondent-insurer that the Tribunal went wrong in including personal allowance of ?27,218/- as part of the monthly income of the claim petitioner, a gross error committed by the Tribunal and hence the same needs to be rectified. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that Exts.A14 to A20, A23 and 24 and the testimony of PW3 clearly prove the monthly income of the claim petitioner. However, the Tribunal took the average of the salary drawn for a period of about 3 to 4 months and fixed the monthly income. In fact, the monthly income was higher than what has been fixed by the Tribunal. There is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal in fixing the amount. If at all there has to be any change, it can only be an increase of the monthly income evidenced by Exts.A14 to A20 and A23 and A24, goes the argument. 9.1. Exts.A14 to A20, A23 and 24 are the pay slips of the claim petitioner. The testimony of PW3 proves the aforesaid documents and therefore the method adopted by the Tribunal in taking the average income of the claim petitioner in fixing the notional income is justified and I do not find any infirmity calling for interference into the same. Percentage of disability 10. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurer that when the doctor as per Ext.A12 certificate has fixed the disability as 95%, the Tribunal without any justification raised it to 100%, which is yet another mistake committed, which needs to be rectified. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that pursuant to the accident, the claim petitioner has become completely invalid and in a semi coma stage and therefore, the Tribunal rightly fixed the functional disability as 100%, which suffers from no infirmity. 10.1. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries- “ • Deep traumatic brain injury. • Diffuse axonal injury and sudural hematoma and SAH. • Fracture D7-C6 spinous process. • Lower end of right radius.” 10.2. Ext.A12 disability certificate reads thus- “ TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN 10.05.2019 This is to certify that Mr. Abraham Charly aged 30 years with hospital number 1484164 is admitted under Neurosurgery department for rehabilitation on 09.12.2016. He had met with road traffic accident (he was a pillion rider on a two wheeler, accidently bag got engaged in the front wheel of the two wheeler and he was thrown out of the bike) on 11.01.2016. Abraham Charly aged 30 years with hospital number 1484164 is admitted under Neurosurgery department for rehabilitation on 09.12.2016. He had met with road traffic accident (he was a pillion rider on a two wheeler, accidently bag got engaged in the front wheel of the two wheeler and he was thrown out of the bike) on 11.01.2016. He sustained deep traumatic brain injury-diffuse axonal injury, subdural hematoma and SAH, fracture D7-C6 spinous process, fracture lower end of right radius. He underwent tracheostomy on 19.01.2016 and PEG insertation on 28.01.2016. He was treated in Fortis hospital, Bangalore from 11.01.2016 to 03.04.2016. As of today he has got following percentage of impairment of functions of the whole person; 1. He has got inability to communicate or comprehend language symbols which amounts to 55% of impairment of whole person. 2. He is in a state of semi coma with complete dependency and subsistence by artificial medical means which amounts to 40% of impairment of whole person. Total impairment of functions amount to 95% impairment of whole person. These impairment of functions are persisting for more than three years, it may be considered as permanent impairment.” (Emphasis supplied) The doctor who issued Ext.A12 certificate examined as PW1 stands by what he has stated in Ext.A12. In addition, PW4, the father of the claim petitioner was also examined. The testimony of PW1 and PW4 coupled with Ext.A12 will show that the claim petitioner is completely bedridden and in a state of coma, who is unable to do any activities including the normal day to day routine activities. That being so, I find that in the light of the dictum in the Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar , AIR Online 2010 SC 125 , the Tribunal was justified in fixing the functional disability as 100%. Addition towards future prospect 11. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurer that there is no evidence to show that the claim petitioner was a permanent employee and hence the Tribunal committed an error in adding 50% of his income towards future prospects. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the job of the claim petitioner was a permanent one, which is established by the testimony of PW3 and hence the Tribunal has not committed any infirmity in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects. 11.1. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the job of the claim petitioner was a permanent one, which is established by the testimony of PW3 and hence the Tribunal has not committed any infirmity in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects. 11.1. I was taken through the testimony of PW3, Head of HR, Garmenting and exporting, Raymonds, Bangalore. In the chief examination itself he has deposed that the claim petitioner, Deputy Manager, Institution and Sales practical (CSD) was working as a permanent employee in Bangalore. This testimony of PW3 is not seen challenged in the cross examination conducted by the second respondent-insurer. Therefore, his testimony stands unchallenged and has not been discredited in any way. That being the position, I find that the Tribunal was right in adding 50% towards future prospects. Pain & suffering and Loss of amenities 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the Tribunal erred in awarding only an amount of ?2,50,000/- and ?2,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering and loss amenities respectively. He draws my attention to the dictum in Ramshad P. v. Afsal , 2025 (1) KHC 575 , in which case the claimant had 100% disability and so compensation of ?10,00,000/- each was awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the second respondent/insurer that the amounts that have been awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and that no enhancement is called for. 12.1. In this context, I refer to the dictum of the Apex Court in Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2022 KHC 6232 in which case the claimant therein had sustained grievous brain injuries, pursuant to which he went into coma. The Apex court awarded compensation of ?10,00,000/- each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in addition to compensation under the other heads. Similar is the situation in the case on hand. Ltd. , 2022 KHC 6232 in which case the claimant therein had sustained grievous brain injuries, pursuant to which he went into coma. The Apex court awarded compensation of ?10,00,000/- each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in addition to compensation under the other heads. Similar is the situation in the case on hand. As noticed earlier, the testimony of PW4, the father of the claim petitioner, coupled with the testimony of PW1, the doctor, who issued Ext.A12 shows that the claim petitioner has become a complete invalid pursuant to the accident and hence in such circumstances, I find that going by the dictum in Benson George (Supra), the claim petitioner herein is also entitled to an amount of ?10,00,000/- each towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities respectively. Short expectancy of life 13. The Tribunal has granted an amount of ?1,50,000/- under this head. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the second respondent-insurer that when adequate amounts have been granted under all the other heads, the amount of ?1,50,000/- granted under this head is a duplication, which is not justified and hence the same needs to be deducted. 13.1. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the second respondent-insurer when adequate compensation under the head of permanent disability, which includes loss of expectancy etc. has already been granted, a further amount under this head is unwarranted. Therefore, the amount ? 1,50,000 /- granted under this head shall stand deducted 14. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in ?) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in ?) Modified in appeal (in ?) 1. Loss of earning 7,44,000/- 1,52,964/- 1,52,964/- (No modification) 2. Partial loss of earning 40,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 3. Transport to hospital 50,000/- 25,000/- 25,000/- (No modification) 4. Extra nourishment 90,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- (No modification) 5. Pain and suffering 10,00,000/- 2,50,000/- 10,00,000/- 6. Loss of amenities 10,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 7. Permanent disability 1,78,56,000/- 1,56,02,328/- 1,56,02,328/- (No modification) 8. Bystander expenses 1,20,000/- 1,87,000/- 1,87,000/- (No modification) 9. Damage to clothes etc 4,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- (No modification) 10. Medical bills 26,00,000/- 19,97,664/- 19,97,664/- (No modification) 11. Short expectancy of life Nil 1,50,000/- deducted 12. Future treatment expense 1,50,00,000/- 15,00,000/- 15,00,000/- (No modification) 13. Loss of amenities 10,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 7. Permanent disability 1,78,56,000/- 1,56,02,328/- 1,56,02,328/- (No modification) 8. Bystander expenses 1,20,000/- 1,87,000/- 1,87,000/- (No modification) 9. Damage to clothes etc 4,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- (No modification) 10. Medical bills 26,00,000/- 19,97,664/- 19,97,664/- (No modification) 11. Short expectancy of life Nil 1,50,000/- deducted 12. Future treatment expense 1,50,00,000/- 15,00,000/- 15,00,000/- (No modification) 13. Future bystander's expense 1,00,00,000/- Total 2,60,04,000/- limited to 2,20,00,000/- 2,01,65,956/- 2,15,65,956/- In the result, the appeal and cross objection are partly allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ? 14,00,000/- (total compensation = ? 2,15,65,956 /- that is, ? 2,01,65,956 /- granted by the Tribunal + ? 14,00,000 /- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The second respondent/ insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. The finding of the Tribunal that the claim petitioner will be entitled to interest for the amount of ?15,00,000/- granted under the head future treatment and bystander's expenses only from the date of the Award shall stand confirmed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.