JUDGMENT : C M JOSHI, J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in MVC No.1282/2019 assailing the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment dated 14.2.2022 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 15.02.2019, the petitioner/appellant was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA.33.W.5003 as a pillion rider from Malla (B) Village to Yelagod. When the motor cycle was on Wadagera - Sumbad road, due to rash and negligent driving of the rider, it turned turtle resulting in severe injuries to the petitioner. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Yadrami, and thereafter, to United Hospital, Kalaburagi. He was inpatient for 30 days in the said hospital and thereafter, he was taken to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. He was inpatient in the said hospital for about 48 days and despite such treatment, he is suffering from the permanent disability. It was contended that the petitioner was a student, aged about 18 years, and the injuries suffered by him have resulted in permanent neurological disabilities. Therefore, he sought just compensation from the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. 3. On being served with the notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle, appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the claim of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 did not file any written statement. 4. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company contended that the allegation of the said accident is fictitious and there being delay in filing the complaint, the motorcycle is falsely implicated by colluding with the police officials. Inter alia, it also contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess any valid driving licence and the terms and conditions of the policy were violated. Inter- alia, the quantum of the compensation claimed was also denied alleging that it is excessive, exorbitant and imaginary. 5. On the basis of the said contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was examined as PW1, Doctor has been examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked in evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 6. 5. On the basis of the said contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was examined as PW1, Doctor has been examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked in evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded a compensation under different heads as below: 1 Towards pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization Rs.78,000/- 3 Towards Medical and incidental expenses during the period of hospitalization Rs.4,88,250/- 4 Towards diet, attendant, nourishing charges Rs.1,00,000/- Total: Rounded off Rs.7,66,250/- Rs.7,66,000/- 7. While coming to such conclusion, it held that though the neurological disability stated by PW2 is 51%, the functional disability is 10% and by adopting the ratio laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another , [ (2014) 14 SCC 396 ] , it awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and on account of permanent disability. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 9. On appeal being admitted, the Tribunal records have been secured and the arguments by learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2 were heard. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner would submit that though the petitioner had suffered fracture of left clavicle, traumatic brain injury, hemiparesis on the right side and partial loss of hearing in the left ear, the Tribunal erred in holding that the disability is only 10%. According to him, the disability should have been considered at 90%. He further submits that the Tribunal failed to consider that the notional income should have been taken into consideration while assessing the compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', and to adopt the multiplier of 18', as held by the Apex Court in several decisions after the decision in Master Mallikarjun's case. Therefore, he submits that there is a need for reassessment of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. He further contended that the method laid down in Master Mallikarjun's case is not followed by the Apex Court in its subsequent judgments. Therefore, he submits that there is a need for reassessment of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. He further contended that the method laid down in Master Mallikarjun's case is not followed by the Apex Court in its subsequent judgments. He submits that a coordinate bench of this Court in Master Karthik R. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another , [MFA 426/2020 and connected matters DD 27.09.2024] and connected matters has adopted a method of calculation based on the inflation rate. He submits that the amount contemplated under Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act , being Rs.40,000/- per annum, (in case of no fault liability under Section 163-A ), there being inflation every year, such inflation rate as notified by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, would have to be taken into consideration. He also submits that on the basis of such calculation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the compensation has to be calculated as per a Table of Inflation since the year 1994 onwards. On that ground, it is submitted that the method adopted in the case of Master Karthik (supra) has to be followed since it considers the actual inflation rate and also considers the compensation as contemplated in Master Mallikarjun's case. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner also alternatively submits that the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra) adopts fixed formulae of compensation ranging from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- depending on the percentage of disability. Such fixed compensation should have been increased periodically in consonance with the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ] (which adopts the escalation of 10% at every 3 years for compensation under the conventional heads). Therefore, in the year 2025 there shall be an escalation of 40% (10% at every three years from the year 2013) and this methodology may be proper as it falls within the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case . He also submits that the judgment in the case of Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala and others , [2013 SCW 5037] having not drawn any support from the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench, would no longer be relevant. 12. He also submits that the judgment in the case of Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala and others , [2013 SCW 5037] having not drawn any support from the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench, would no longer be relevant. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company, submits that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation appropriately and there is no need for reconsideration of the same. He submits that the disability considered by the Tribunal at 10% cannot be interfered with, since the petitioner solely relies on the Disability Certificate at Ex.P12 to establish that he suffers from disability of 51%. There being no material on record to show the functional disability, there should have been material to show the hemiparesis and such other disability. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner regarding hemiparesis, loss of hearing in the left ear cannot be accepted. He further contends that the adoption of the ratio laid down in Master Mallikarjun's case (supra) by the Tribunal is justifiable and therefore, the appeal is bereft of any merits. He further submitted that the judgment of the Apex court in Kishan Gopal's case (supra) considers the annual notional income of Rs.30,000/- in respect of the minors. Such notional income having been adopted by the Apex Court has to be followed, but he would distinguish the judgments of Master Mallikarjun and Kumari Kiran through her father Vs. Sajjan Singh and others , [ (2015) 1 SCC 539 ] , on the ground that these judgments do not adhere to notional income criteria which was used by the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra). Therefore, he submits that the method used by the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal is to be followed. 13. The above submissions by both the sides raise the following aspects to be considered in this appeal: (A) Since the petitioner was a minor on the date of the accident, which method of calculation of the compensation is to be adopted? (B) What is the disability suffered by the petitioner and what is the quantum of compensation? Re.Point No.(A) 14. The calculation of the compensation in respect of injuries to a minor was the subject matter of a catena of decisions by the Apex court. (B) What is the disability suffered by the petitioner and what is the quantum of compensation? Re.Point No.(A) 14. The calculation of the compensation in respect of injuries to a minor was the subject matter of a catena of decisions by the Apex court. What is required to be determined by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation for the injuries suffered by him/her in the road traffic accident. The method of calculation gets complicated as the future of the minor is not known. The imponderables of the career of a minor pose a difficult situation for the Tribunals, for, the compensation can be awarded only once. The calculation of the compensation involves (a) determination of the notional income, (b) selecting appropriate multiplier and (c) in what circumstances future prospects is to be added. (a) Notional Income of Minors. 15. The Apex Court has adopted a fixed compensation depending on the nature of the injury and the disability suffered by the minor in the initial years. Later, it seems, the compensation is related to the age, the nature of the injuries suffered and the formulae laid down in the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act . An effort was made to iron out the anomalies that may creep into the method of calculation and the difficulty to adopt standard formulae to all the cases. It is in this back ground, that the method of calculation of the compensation for an injury suffered by the minor has to be considered. 16. There are catena of judgments concerning the assessment of the compensation concerning the minors, which show the development of the law in this regard. They are as below: (a) In the case of Sapna vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another , [ (2008) 7 SCC 613 ] , the Apex Court adopted Schedule II of M.V. Act, and calculated the compensation of a 12 year old minor by adopting the Multiplier of 15. It was observed as below: "2. What should be the fair and adequate compensation for permanent disability suffered by a twelve-year-old girl in an accident involving a motor vehicle is the question involved herein. On 3-9- 1999, at about 10.00 a.m., Sapna, while going to a temple, was hit by a “jeep”, used as a taxi. She was dragged along with the jeep to a distance of about 15-20 ft. On 3-9- 1999, at about 10.00 a.m., Sapna, while going to a temple, was hit by a “jeep”, used as a taxi. She was dragged along with the jeep to a distance of about 15-20 ft. She suffered compound fracture of left knee and dislocation of patella/bone of left knee and skin and muscles above and below came out and veins got cut and knee got completely damaged and bones of left leg became bare due to tearing of skin and flesh and left leg bent at 90 degree at knee as a result whereof she has become crippled and completely disabled to walk. The skin of right leg from thigh to ankle was also peeled off resulting in serious wounds. xxx 8. The principles governing a claim petition for assessing the damages in case of bodily injury suffered is that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal should consider all relevant factors so as to enable the insured to be put in the same position as if he had not sustained any injury. The principle of restitutio in integrum may be applied in a case of this nature. Pecuniary loss and non- pecuniary loss are required to be pressed under certain heads. So far as the pecuniary loss is concerned, the same can be ascertained. What is required to be done is a balancing act by awarding such sum which, on the one hand, shall take care of the loss suffered by the claimant for the present time and future pecuniary benefits and, on the other, pecuniary advantages which from whatever source comes to them by reason of such injuries. So far as non-pecuniary loss is concerned, the same has to be assessed broadly under certain heads, namely, damages for physical pain, mental suffering, etc. besides the amount spent on medical treatment, if any. xxx 10. The principle that is to be applied in a case of this nature that the amount of compensation should be just and fair is not in dispute. What would, however, be just and fair amount of compensation is required to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case involved. In given cases, the courts may deviate from the structured formula. In terms of the Second Schedule, where the deceased or injured were not having any income, the statute presumes an income of or about Rs 15,000 per month. In given cases, the courts may deviate from the structured formula. In terms of the Second Schedule, where the deceased or injured were not having any income, the statute presumes an income of or about Rs 15,000 per month. If having regard to the age of the appellant, the multiplier of 15 is applied, a sum of Rs 2,25,000 would be payable. Besides the said sum, not only some amount of compensation should be awarded under the heading of mental agony but also some provision should be made for future treatment.” (b) In the case of Priya Vasant Kalgutkar vs. Murad Shaikh and another , [ (2009) 15 SCC 54 ] also, the Apex Court adopted Schedule II of the M.V. Act by observing as below: " 5. Indisputably, the appellant was a child at that time. She had no earning. What amount could be awarded towards future loss of earning or prospective loss of earning could not have been determined on the basis of any legal principle. Compensation for the injuries suffered by a person in a motor vehicle accident can be determined either on the basis of the actual damages suffered or upon application of the structured formula. Although for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act, a legal principle may be found in the Second Schedule thereof.” (c) In the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another [ (2014) 14 SCC 396 ] , the Apex Court laid down a fixed compensation formula which is relatable to the percentage of disability suffered by the minor. It was held as below: " 9 . Sapna v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2008) 7 SCC 613 ] is the case of a 12 year old girl who suffered 90% disability in her left leg. This Court granted a lump sum amount of Rs 2,00,000 on these heads. 10 . In Iranna v. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla [ 2004 ACJ 1396 (Kar)], a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court granted an amount of Rs 4,00,000 on these heads to the child who suffered 80% permanent disability. 11 . In Michael v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2013) 14 SCC 774], this Court considered the case of an eight year old child suffering a fracture on both legs with total disability only to the tune of 16%. 11 . In Michael v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2013) 14 SCC 774], this Court considered the case of an eight year old child suffering a fracture on both legs with total disability only to the tune of 16%. It was held that the child should be entitled to an amount of Rs 3,80,000 on these counts. 12 . Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc. should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs 3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs 4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs 6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick." (d) In the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), the Apex Court held that though Schedule II of the M.V. Act, prescribes Rs.15,000/- per annum as the notional income, much water having flown after the said Schedule was introduced in the year 1994, there is a need for reconsidering the same and held that such income has to be considered at Rs.30,000/- per annum. It was observed as below: "38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, [ (2001) 8 SCC 197 ] with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs 15,000. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. 39. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs 15,000. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. 39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs 30,000 and further taking the young age of the parents, namely, the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 × 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC] , which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case [ (2001) 8 SCC 197 ] and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs 50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants.” (e) In the case of Kumari Kiran through her father vs. Sajjan Singh and others , [ (2015)1 SCC 539 ] the Apex Court followed the method of calculation of the compensation as laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra) and observed as below: "14. Hence, this Court in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in Mallikarjun case [ (2014) 14 SCC 396 ] , and after examining the facts, evidence on record and circumstances of the case on hand, we deem it fit and proper to award Rs 3,00,000 towards permanent disability of the appellant minors viz. Kumari Kiran and Master Sachin, since they have suffered 30% and 20% permanent disability respectively, due to the shortening of their right legs by one inch after the injuries sustained in the motor accident. Kumari Kiran and Master Sachin, since they have suffered 30% and 20% permanent disability respectively, due to the shortening of their right legs by one inch after the injuries sustained in the motor accident. Further, upon considering the age of appellant minors, they have a long journey ahead of them in their lives, during which they along with their parents will have to endure an immeasurable amount of agony and uncertain medical expenses due to this motor vehicle accident. Thus, based on the principles laid down in the above case, we award Rs 25,000 each towards agony to parents and Rs 25,000 each towards future medical expenses." (f) Thereafter, in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others , , [ (2020) 4 SCC 413 ] observing that the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum being grossly inadequate, it was held that the income as per the Minimum Wages Act has to be considered. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: " 20 . Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs.14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs.14,66,000. 21. Though the claimant would have been entitled to separate attendant charges for the period during which she was hospitalised, we are refraining from awarding the same because we are going to award her attendant charges for life. At the same time, we are clearly of the view that the tortfeasor cannot take benefit of the gratuitous service rendered by the family members. At the same time, we are clearly of the view that the tortfeasor cannot take benefit of the gratuitous service rendered by the family members. When this small girl was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, or was in her village, 2 to 3 family members must have accompanied her. Even if we are not paying them the attendant charges they must be paid for loss of their wages and the amount they would have spent in hospital for food, etc. These family members left their work in the village to attend to this little girl in the hospital at Karnal or Chandigarh. In the hospital, the claimant would have had at least two attendants, and taking the cost of each at Rs 500 per day for 51 days, we award her Rs 51,000." g) In the case of Divya vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1488] the Apex Court holds that the multiplier of 18' is to be applied for the age group of 15 to 18 years. The said judgment reads as below. "16. We are of the considered view that the selection of multiplier ‘15’ for the age group upto 15 years by the three-Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari's case is having a sound basis. It is common knowledge that the age group of 21 to 25 years is regarded as the commencement of normal productive years as referred specifically by the two-Judge Bench in Sarla Verma's case at paragraph 39. True that in Sarla Verma's case the same multiplier viz., ‘18’ is selected for the age group 15 to 20 years. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, which is an enactment to prohibit the engagement of children in all occupation and to prohibit the engagement of adolescence in hazardous occupations and process and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.” (h) In the case of Baby Sakshi Greola v s. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another, , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692] the Apex Court added future prospects to the annual income by relying on the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The relevant paras of the said judgment read as below: "28. The relevant paras of the said judgment read as below: "28. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the medical evidence came to a conclusion that, since the appellant was only seven years at the time of the accident, it would be appropriate to take notional income as per the MV Act to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 which was taken up-to the age of fifteen years. Therefore, an amount of 15,000/- × 15 × 75/100 = Rs.1,68,750/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. The High Court did not enhance the amount awarded under this head. 29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2 nd June 2009, was Rs.4,358/- per month. 30. Further, a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi in paragraph 59 recorded its conclusion as follows: “59 . In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ] should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2. As Rajesh [ (2013) 9 SCC] has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari [ (2013) 9 SCC 65 ], which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh [ (2013) 9 SCC 54 is not a binding precedent. 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] read with para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” (emphasis supplied) 31 . Accordingly, to arrive at the compensation to be awarded under the head of loss of income and earnings due to disability, 40% should be added for future prospects and a multiplier of 18 would have to be applied in view of the age of the appellant. 32 . The same approach was adopted by this Court in the cases of Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra)." “ (i) In the case of Rushi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., , [ (2025) 1 SCC 635 ] it is observed as below: “Leave granted. 32 . The same approach was adopted by this Court in the cases of Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra)." “ (i) In the case of Rushi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., , [ (2025) 1 SCC 635 ] it is observed as below: “Leave granted. On 13-4-2013, when she was still a child of less than twelve years of age, the appellant was involved in an accident that left her permanently disabled to the extent of 75%. The vehicle in which she was travelling with her father was hit by the Max Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. AS 01CC 3349. In the result, she suffers from severe Hemiparesis in her left upper and lower limbs. xxx 12. At this stage, we may note that this Court had occasion to consider a similar case involving a twelve- year-old child in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [ (2020) 4 SCC 413 ]. In that case, the child had suffered 90% permanent disability due to the accident. The argument before this Court was that as the child was just twelve years of age, notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. should be adopted. However, this Court rejected this argument and adopted the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman for quantifying the notional loss of earnings of the child. 13 . In the case on hand, the High Court adopted the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour i.e. Rs 169 per day, but there is no justification for the same as the appellant was a schoolgoing child at the time of her accident. The minimum wages payable to a skilled workman, as per the Notification dated 1-3-2013 of the Government of Assam, stood at Rs 175 per day, which is more acceptable. On that basis, the notional loss of income of the appellant would work out to Rs 5250 per month and the multiplier applicable would be 15, considering her age at the time of the accident. In effect, the notional loss of earnings would work out to Rs 9,45,000 (Rs 5250×12×15). 14. The High Court failed to consider the loss of future prospects @ 40% of the monthly salary, in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Kajal [ (2020) 4 SCC 413 ]. Therefore, a further sum of Rs 3,78,000 (Rs 2100×12×15) would be payable to the appellant under that head. 14. The High Court failed to consider the loss of future prospects @ 40% of the monthly salary, in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Kajal [ (2020) 4 SCC 413 ]. Therefore, a further sum of Rs 3,78,000 (Rs 2100×12×15) would be payable to the appellant under that head. The sum of Rs 3 lakhs computed by the High Court for pain, suffering and loss of amenities is just and warrants no interference. Similarly, the compensation of Rs 3 lakhs for loss of marriage prospects is sufficient.” Thus, from the above decisions it is clear that the Apex Court initially adopted the compensation as contemplated under Schedule II of the Motor vehicles Act, at Rs.15,000/- per annum, and then it shifted towards enhancing the compensation by doubling Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, in Kajal’s case even the said method was deviated and the minimum wages contemplated under the Minimum Wages act was adopted for calculation of the compensation. The inadequacies in the method of calculation by adopting a fixed quantum have led the Apex Court to shift towards the regime of Minimum Wages Act. Thereafter, it has held that future prospects are also to be considered while determining the multiplicand. 17. Recently, a division bench of this Court, in the case of Smt. Mariyamma and others Vs. Sri Suyambulingam V., and another , [MFA No.7404/2014 DD 6.12.2022] after referring the judgment in the case of Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir , [ (2015) 7 SCC 252 ] ; Smt. Neeta and others Vs. Divisional Manager MSRTC, Kolhapur , [ (2015) 3 SCC 590 ] ; Kala Devi and others Vs. Bhagwan Das Chouhan and others , [ (2015) 2 SCC 771 ] ; Sonobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmadabad Municipal Transport Service , [ (2013) 16 SCC 719 ] ; Pushkar Mehra Vs. Brij Mohan Kishwaha and others , [ (2015) 12 SCC 688 ] ; Govind Yadav Vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited and another , [ (2011) 10 SCC 683 ] ; and Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited , [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 ] , held that the minimum wages as contemplated under Minimum Wages Act is the yardstick to consider the notional income. The New India Insurance Company Limited and another , [ (2011) 10 SCC 683 ] ; and Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited , [ (2009) 13 SCC 710 ] , held that the minimum wages as contemplated under Minimum Wages Act is the yardstick to consider the notional income. It was also noticed that the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of disputes before Lok Adalat being in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Act, they may be adopted. 18. However, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Master Karthik (supra), adopts the notional income from the year 1994 onwards by adding the inflation rate. It prescribes the inflation rate that is available on the Website of Labour Bureau of Ministry of Labour and Employment. With that, the money value of Rs.40,000/- prescribed in the year 1993 would come to Rs.2,34,632/- in the year 2021. It is pertinent to note that adopting inflation rate was considered in the backdrop of the facts of that case. The formula adopted cannot be adopted universally. Whereas the minimum wages method has more than one reason to be more acceptable. They can be enumerated as below: 1. None of the judgments of the Apex Court have held that inflation rate would be the proper approach to calculate the notional income. It is pertinent to note that Minimum Wages Act, speaks of considering such inflation as it would be applicable towards the wages. Legal precedence favour minimum wages. Minimum wages are statutory, updated periodically, and reflect governmental assessment of living costs and inflation implicitly. 2. Inflation rate is dependent upon fiscal situations of the Nation. It often depends upon the market perceptions. It is only after the inflation is assessed and considered that the DA rates and the wages are hiked by the Government and the Private Employers. 3. Inflation adjustment is rarely directly applied by courts in India unless calculating a historic loss where older wage rates are “brought to present value.” Inflation rate calculation is not an independent factor used to fix notional income in current time cases, unless argued specifically and supported by evidence — and even then, courts are hesitant because of variability and lack of standard judicial formula.. 4. 4. Yet another aspect is that the annual income of 40,000 under the schedule in the year 1994 is relatable to the minimum wages declared in the year 1993 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. The report for the year 1993 sofar as it relates to the State of Karnataka, shows as below: State ind number Agg ind label Det ind label zone Basic wage rate DA rate Total min wage Karnataka 1 ag Agriculture 1 26 26 2 ag Agrabatti 1 . . . The report for the year 1993 sofar as it relates to the State of Karnataka, shows as below: State ind number Agg ind label Det ind label zone Basic wage rate DA rate Total min wage Karnataka 1 ag Agriculture 1 26 26 2 ag Agrabatti 1 . . . 3 ma Automobile Engineering 1 23.35 8.33 31.65 4 se Bakeries 1 12.5 16.48 28.98 4 se Bakeries 2 13.96 16.48 30.44 5 ma Carpentry mills & saw mills 1 34.4 34.4 5 ma Carpentry mills &saw mills 2 38.6 38.6 6 ma Cardamum malais & cardamum garden 1 5.6 10.3 15.9 7 ma Ceramics Stoneware & Poteries works 1 9.5 16.78 26.28 8 ag Planations (tea, coffee, chincona& rubber) 1 18.6 6.66 25.26 8 ag Plantations (tea, coffee, chincona& rubber) 2 19.75 6.66 26.41 9 se Clubs 1 19 20.67 39.67 9 se Clubs 2 23.65 20.67 44.32 10 se Coffee Curing Works 1 9.5 25.17 34.67 10 se Coffee Curing Works 2 12.05 25.17 37.22 11 ma Confectionary Industries 1 12.5 19.77 32.27 11 ma Confectionary Industries 2 13.96 19.77 33.73 12 ag Cotton Ginning & Pressing 1 39.15 39.15 12 ag Cotton Ginning & Pressing 2 45.88 45.88 13 ma Cashew Industries 1 21.5 8.32 29.82 14 co Constructions or Maintenance of Roads or in Building operations 1 35.5 35.5 15 ma Engineering Industry 1 12.5 20.67 33.17 15 ma Engineering Industry 2 15 20.67 35.67 16 se Film Industry 1 25.62 11.66 37.28 16 se Film Industry 2 33.46 11.66 45.12 17 ma Foundry with or without machine shaft 1 23.35 8.33 31.68 17 ma Foundry with or without machine shaft 2 24.69 8.33 33.02 18 se Hospitals and Nursing Homes 1 19.23 18.27 37.5 18 se Hospitals and Nursing Homes 2 20.77 18.27 39.04 19 ma Khandsari Sugar Factory 1 24.5 8.33 32.83 20 se Laundry Industry 1 22.94 8.33 31.27 21 ma Oil Mills 1 24.95 8.33 33.28 21 ma Oil Mills 2 26.8 8.33 35.13 22 se Petrol and Diesel Oil pumps Industry 1 21.96 8.33 30.29 22 se Petrol and Diesel Oil pumps Industry 2 23.73 8.33 32.06 23 ma Plywood Industry 1 36 36 24 se Printing Press 1 35.6 35.6 24 se Printing Press 2 39.15 39.15 25 ma Public Motor Industry 1 22.88 8.33 31.21 26 se Residential Hotels & Eating Houses 1 35.38 0 35.38 26 se Residential Hotels & Eating Houses 2 39.4 0 39.4 27 ag Rice, Flour or Dal Mills 1 35.15 0 35.15 28 ag Sericulture 1 9.5 14.18 23.68 28 ag Sericulture 2 15 14.18 29.18 29 se Shops & Commercial Establishments 1 14.57 15.22 29.79 29 se Shops & Commercial Establishments 2 16.53 15.22 31.75 30 mi Stone Breaking & Stone Crushing 1 23.11 8.33 31.44 31 ma Tanneries and Leather Manufacturing 1 6 35.45 41.45 31 ma Tanneries and Leather Manufacturing 2 6.5 35.45 41.95 32 se Tailoring Industry 1 24.7 3.55 28.25 32 se Tailoring Industry 2 28.2 3.55 31.75 33 ag Toddy Tapping 1 9.35 35.45 44.8 33 ag Toddy Tapping 2 10.96 35.45 46.41 34 ma Tile Industry 1 16 17.23 33.23 35 ag Tobacco (including Bidi Making) 1 19.24 6.66 25.9 36 ma Handloom Powerloom (Cotton Industry) 1 23.82 0 23.82 37 se Biscuits 1 34.85 0 34.85 37 se Biscuits 2 36.52 0 36.52 The median value of the minimum wages would be 33.27 per diem, which comes to Rs.12,000/- per annum. Therefore, the annual income as may be found in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act , (Rs.15000/- p.a.) in fact, is in consonance with the minimum wages notified for a skilled labourer under the Minimum Wages Act. It is pertinent to note that the Minimum Wages Act 1948 contemplated a dynamic change by authorising the Government of India to declare such wages from time to time. However, the Motor Vehicles Act , was rigid and it did not permit change of the Schedule from time to time. This is one of the anomalies in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988. This was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma also. 19. In the case of Smt. Mariyamma and others vs. Sri Suyambulingam and another supra, a Division Bench of this Court has considered the several judgments of the Apex Court which adopted the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as the notional income at para 24 to 31. 20. Therefore, the Apex Court as well as several High Courts have consistently held and preferred the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, as a safe principle to consider the notional income. In that view of the matter, this Court prefers to adopt the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, as a notional income. (b) What should be the multiplier for minors? 21. It is not only the notional income of a minor which was involved. Even the Multiplier was also the subject matter of these decisions. Initially, the Multiplier of 15' was considered for the minor aged 18 years as per the Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Thereafter, in the case of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others , , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]] the Apex Court held that the multiplier suggested in the Schedule is incorrect and laid down that the multiplier should be 18' for the age group of 15 to 25 years. However, it did not suggest any multiplier for the age below 15 years. Later, in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and others referred supra and in the case of Master Ayush Vs. However, it did not suggest any multiplier for the age below 15 years. Later, in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and others referred supra and in the case of Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.,Ltd., and another , [ (2022) 7 SCC 738 ] , the Apex Court adopted the multiplier of 18' for the minors aged 11 years and 12 years. Thus, adopting the multiplier was also considered for the age group of below 15 years. There cannot be any justification to adopt a multiplier which is less than 18' for minors. 22. The ‘multiplier’ is discussed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas and others Susamma Thomas , [ (1994) 2 SCC 176 ] as below: “17. The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs.10,000. If a sum of Rs.1,00,000 is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs.10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier i.e. the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last, etc. Usually in English courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependants, whichever is higher) goes up.” 23. Therefore, after considering the imponderables of life expectancy, the maximum multiplier of 18' is prescribed. There is no reason as to why a child below 15' years is to be considered with a lesser multiplier than 18'. Therefore, what can be inferred is that the multiplier for the age group below 15 is also to be considered as 18' only. (c) Future prospects of minors. 24. There is no reason as to why a child below 15' years is to be considered with a lesser multiplier than 18'. Therefore, what can be inferred is that the multiplier for the age group below 15 is also to be considered as 18' only. (c) Future prospects of minors. 24. The next question would be, in what circumstances the future prospects are to be added to the notional income to calculate the compensation in respect of the injuries suffered. Obviously, this would depend on the following: 1. Whether the minor claimant can adapt to the disability suffered due to the injury and eke out his livelihood in future or it would cause disablement to pursue his career. 2. What are the chances that he may be prevented from pursuing his career goals. 3. Whether the disability suffered by the claimant would permanently and substantially impair his earning capacity in his future life. 4. Whether the academic or such other pursuits of the minor show a performance of par excellence? 25. Generally, if the physical disability is more than 50%, it can safely be said that he/she suffers impairment in pursuing his career goals, unless the evidence showed that the minor was a child prodigy. It has to be accepted that there are no fixed yardsticks for this. 26. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Abdul and others , [MFA No.103807/2016 & Connected Matter DD 27.5.2022] , a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the argument on the point. What was considered by the Bench was, “whether future prospects are to be considered when the disability is 20%?” The judgment does not afford any reason as to why future prospects are to be considered when the disability is 20%. The criteria or the threshold of disability to consider the future prospects is not discussed. Therefore, it can safely be said that the future prospects are to be added if the functional disability is 50% or more. If the evidence establishes that the minor is a young person with exceptional qualities or abilities, of the nature of child prodigy, future prospects may be considered even if the disability is less than 50%. Re.point (B) 27. The petitioner/appellant herein places reliance on the medical records to show that he had suffered various injuries which resulted in permanent disability to him. Re.point (B) 27. The petitioner/appellant herein places reliance on the medical records to show that he had suffered various injuries which resulted in permanent disability to him. The Discharge Summary of United Hospital, Kalaburagi, produced at Ex.P10 shows that the petitioner, who was aged 16 years was inpatient from 15.02.2019 to 16.03.2019. The course in the hospital as depicted in Ex.P10 reads as below: "Course in hospital: Patient presented with alleged history of road traffic accident on 15.02.2019. O/E sustained injury to held and left clavicular swelling with abrasions, 3 episodes of convulsions. GCS E1V1M2. Relevant investigation done. Patient intubated on admission and was managed conservatively. I/V/O prolonged ventilatory support tracheostomy done on 19-02-2019. Neurosurgeons, Orthopedic surgeon opinion taken. Once patient condition Improved, extubated and shifted to delux on 25-02-2019. Patient underwent above procedure and post operative recovery was uneventful. Patient is being discharged with following advice. On discharge, patient open eyes spontaneously, aphasic and does non purposeful movments in limbs and irritable. CT brain 21-02-2019 When compared to previous CT scan dated 15-02-2019 • Moderate resolution of the bleed noted within the left lateral ventricle and within the fornix. • Mild resolution of the hemorrhagic contusions seen in bilateral frontal juxta-cortical white matter and left hippocampal region, however subtle increase in the vasogenic edema noted. MRI brain 16-02-2019 • Areas of diffusion restriction with blooming seen at the splenium of the corpus callosum, bilateral centrum semiovale, bilateral corona radiate, bilateral gangliocapsular region, left hippocampus and right superior cerebellar peduncle, left frontal and left temporal subcortical white matter spectrum of diffuse axonal injury. • Soft tissue injury with hematoma seen involving the scalp in left parieto temporal region. • Mild SAH seen involving the cortical sulci in bilateral parieto occipital region. CT brain 15.02.2019 • Intraventricular hemorrhage involving the body, occipital and temporal horn of left lateral ventricle noted. • Few small hemorrhagic contusions noted involving right caudate nucleus. • Small hemorrhagic contusions in right frontal susbcortical white matter. • Tiny focus of bleed involving the interpenduncular cistern. • Extracranial soft tissue injury in left fronto parietal and temporal region.” Thereafter, he was taken to NIMHANS, Bangalore, and he was inpatient from 12.04.2019 to 01.06.2019. The history as depicted from Ex.P11 reads as below: "History of Present Illness: Mr. Sagar, 16 year old tenth standard student from Gulbarga was apparently normal, when he allegedly met with an RTA on 15.02.2019. The history as depicted from Ex.P11 reads as below: "History of Present Illness: Mr. Sagar, 16 year old tenth standard student from Gulbarga was apparently normal, when he allegedly met with an RTA on 15.02.2019. He allegedly skid and fell from the bike he was riding, H/O LOC and disorientation for 15days. One episode of seizure was there at the accident site. He was taken to the local hospital within 30 minutes and was intubated as his initial GCS was E1V1M2. MR Imaging brain showed diffuse axonal injury with IVH in left lateral ventricle. Owing to the poor sensorium, he was tracheostomised after 4 days ICU. He sustained fracture clavicle which was managed conservatively owing to the poor sensorium. He developed weakness of left upper and lower limb along with swallowing and speech disturbance. His trunk balance was poor that he was not able to get up from bed and sit or stand without support Trancheostomy was removed in the last week of march 2019. He was treated conservatively and discharged. Currently patient was brought to NIMHANS for second opinion. He was adviced admission for inpatient rehabilitation. Functional History: bed bound. Dependent for all ADL Not indicating for bowel and bladder. On indwelling catheter for bladder drainage. NG tube insitu. E4V4M5. Anger issues present." 28. The observation also show that the petitioner was stable, afebrile, he is partially dependent for ADL, he is able to transfer and take steps by himself, but requires supervision and currently continent for bowl and bladder and hated to verbalise. The advise at discharge also show that psychologically he was not normal. 29. Coming to the Disability Certificate at Ex.P8, wherein, it was observed as below: "HISTORY OF MET with road traffic accident on 15/2/19 and sustained traumatic brain injury and injury to # of L-clavicle. There was loss of consciousness and 3 episodes of convulsions. He was examined and admitted in United Hospital, Kalburgi in unconscious with breathing difficulty. His CT scan on 15/2/19 revealed intraventricular hemorrhage involving the body and al horns of ventricles, hemorrhagic contusion in R-caudate nucleus, hemorrhagic contusion of R-frontal lobe, bleed in interpeduncular cistern and extracranial injury to L-TPF region. He was intubated and managed conservatively and on 19/2/19 a tracheotomy was performed for prolonged ventilatory support. Patient improved, extubation was done. Patient was discharged on 16/3/19 in aphasic state with irritability and non-purposeful limb movements. He was intubated and managed conservatively and on 19/2/19 a tracheotomy was performed for prolonged ventilatory support. Patient improved, extubation was done. Patient was discharged on 16/3/19 in aphasic state with irritability and non-purposeful limb movements. He got admitted in NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore on 12/4/19 where he was diagnosed to be suffering from TBI with diffuse axonal injury - left hemiparesis, R-cerebellar dysfunction and malunited L-clavicle fracture. During his stay, he was given psychotherapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. He was discharged on 1/6/19 with advice to continue above therapy and training at home. COMPLAINS BY PATIENT and brother Umesh Talwar. 1. Weakness in L-upper and lower limbs. 2. On and off headache and giddiness and falls. 3. Speech is unclear. 4. L-side neck movements are painful. 5. Unable to walk properly or hold the object firmly with R-hand. 6. Deafness in L-ear. 7. Pain in tracheotomy wound while talking. 8. Forgetfulness, irritable, short tempered, needs support for his routine functios. EXAMINATION OF PATIENT: 1. Patient is slow in understanding the routine commands. 2. His pulse, respiration and temperature are within normal limits. 3. Painful tracheotomy wound noted. 4. L-Upper and Lower limb-power-G-II-III, hyper reflexia, hypotonia, and loss of finer movements. 5. Partial loss of hearing in L-ear on Rennis and Webber test. 6. Neck movements on R-side are painful and restricted. 7. Gait is unstable and waddling." 30. On the basis of the above material, the PW2, who has issued Ex.P8 states that there is right side hemiparesis which accounts for neurological disability of 40%, there is a partial loss of hearing in left ear due to cranial auditory nerve damage, which accounts for disability of 10% and there is a speech disturbance which accounts for disability of 10%. Therefore, he opines that there is cumulative disability of 51% to the entire body. 31. The testimony of PW1 shows that though neurological disability was pleaded, the Tribunal does not make any observation about the neurological disability. It is pertinent to note that the neurological disability on account of right hemiparesis and the observations made by United Hospital as well as NIMHANS, Bangalore, would clearly show that there is functional disability to the petitioner. Ex.P7 shows that he did not appear for the SSLC Examination for the year 2019. It is pertinent to note that the neurological disability on account of right hemiparesis and the observations made by United Hospital as well as NIMHANS, Bangalore, would clearly show that there is functional disability to the petitioner. Ex.P7 shows that he did not appear for the SSLC Examination for the year 2019. Therefore, the academic performance of the petitioner as to whether he could have gone to the higher echelons in his career is not available before this Court. 32. It is evident that the petitioner is mentally affected and his ability to perform has diminished. Evidently, the neurological disability has resulted in functional disability. There is no observation by the Tribunal about he hating verbalizing. This Court is of the view that the functional disability has to be considered at 60%. In view of the conclusions reached while discussing Point (c) above, future prospects need to be added. 33. There cannot be any dispute that he was aged 16 years at the time of the accident and therefore, the compensation has to be calculated by adopting the notional income and the multiplier applicable to his age. In the light of the discussions made supra, the appropriate multiplier would be 18'. 34. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok adalat prescribe a notional income of Rs.13,250/- per month for the year 2019. In umpteen number of judgments including the judgment in the case of Smt.Mariyamma and others referred supra , this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the loss of income due to disability is calculated as: Rs.18,550/- [Rs.13,250/- + Rs.5,300/- (40%)] x 12 x 18 (multiplier) x 60% (disability) = 24,04,080/- Thus, the petitioner/appellant herein is entitled for a sum of Rs.24,04,080/- under the said head. 35. It is evident that the observations of PW2 do not show that he needs an attendant continuously for the rest of his life. Therefore, the claim of compensation under the head of 'requirement of an attendant for the rest of the life of the petitioner' cannot be accepted. 36. 35. It is evident that the observations of PW2 do not show that he needs an attendant continuously for the rest of his life. Therefore, the claim of compensation under the head of 'requirement of an attendant for the rest of the life of the petitioner' cannot be accepted. 36. The petitioner having suffered the above injuries which has resulted in hemiperasis and also having regard to nature of treatment, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering'. 37. The petitioner being in his adolescence has suffered the above mentioned injuries and therefore, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities' in life. 38. The petitioner is also entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of 'loss of marriage prospects'. 39. The compensation under the head of 'loss of earnings during the laid up period’ , which is basically the loss of earnings of parents, is assessed for 8 months as: 13,250/- x 8=Rs.1,06,000/- since the petitioner was inpatient for 78 days and he was taken to NIMHANS at Bangalore. 40. The compensation under the head of 'medical expenses' awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.4,88,250/- do not require any enhancement. Considering the nature of the injuries, which is hemiparesis, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards 'future medical expenses', which will not carry any interest. 41. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards 'attendant charges, conveyance and nourishing food' as awarded by the Tribunal do not require any enhancement. 42. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant herein is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.34,23,330/- instead of Rs.7,66,250/- awarded by the Tribunal under the following heads: Loss of future earnings due to disability Rs.24,04,080/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 75,000/- Loss of income of parents during the laid up period Rs. 1,06,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 4,88,250/- Future medical expenses. Rs. 50,000/- Attendant charges, conveyance and nourishing food Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Less: awarded by the tribunal Rs.34,23,330/- Rs. 7,66,250/- Enhancement Rs.26,57,080/- 43. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER (1) The appeal is allowed in part. 1,06,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 4,88,250/- Future medical expenses. Rs. 50,000/- Attendant charges, conveyance and nourishing food Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Less: awarded by the tribunal Rs.34,23,330/- Rs. 7,66,250/- Enhancement Rs.26,57,080/- 43. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER (1) The appeal is allowed in part. (2) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.26,57,080/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% p.a. (excluding interest for the delayed period of 279 days in filing the appeal as per order dated 27.3.2023) from the date of the petition till its deposit by the Insurer. However, a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards 'future medical expenses' does not carry any interest. (3). Rest of the order by the Tribunal regarding fixed deposit and release remain unaltered.