J.K. Maheshwari, J:

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 23.12.2006, passed by the learned Fourth M.A.C.T., Dewas in Claim Case No. 67 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,88,500/- with interest to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on 10.10.2005.

2. Appellant had preferred a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000. According to the appellant compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and deserves enhancement; however, by filing the appeal inadequacy of the compensation has been assailed.

3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant. None of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner/driver/insurance company by filing the cross-objection or cross-appeal. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on all these issues.

4. It is a case in which the injured who is of 17 years suffered head injury, fracture in jaw, rupture of liver and fracture in ribs having 97.5 per cent memory loss. The Tribunal found it a case of total loss of earnings. However, accepting the earnings of the injured at Rs. 15,000/- per annum the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 as per the age and awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- under the head of future loss of earnings, Rs. 1,33,500/- for medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- for transportation making a total compensation of Rs. 3,88,500. The appellant is present along with his advocate Mr. Hemant Sharma; however, he has been examined by the doctor and was found to be a case of living corpse. Mr. Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, has strenuously urged that the injured was doing the work of agriculture, milk vending and other works at the time of accident, i.e., on 10.10.2005, however, the calculation of the future loss of earnings as made by Tribunal accepting the notional earning and the compensation as allowed is inadequate, which is liable to be enhanced. It is also contended by him that injured/appellant requires an attendant for his whole life, therefore, some amount may be allowed under the said head. It is further contended by him that under the head of pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- as allowed to him is inadequate, which is liable to be enhanced. Some amount may further be awarded for loss of amenities of life and also some amount towards special diet may be allowed. In view of the said submissions, prayer is made to allow this appeal and to grant just and reasonable compensation.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for respondent insurance company, has relied upon the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and further argued that the compensation awarded is just, proper and reasonable and not liable to be interfered with. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.

6. After having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record as well as the statement of the doctor and also looking to the appellant present in the court, who has been examined by the doctor. in the opinion of this court, it is a case of living corpse. A human being has to live, having dependence on others is a curse to him and I found it correct. Thus, the compensation deserves to be awarded considering the aforesaid commensurate to his age and earning capacities. In this context, it is seen from the record that the injured is a minor on the date of accident, i.e., 17 years of age. but he belongs to village background where the father and mother are having agriculture and doing the work of milk vending. In such circumstances, looking to such background, it may be safely presumed that the injured may be an assisting hand to his family members. Thus, for such assistance, his earning at least Rs. 2,000/- per month can be safely presumed to the family. 0n finding it as a case of total loss of earnings, the annual loss comes to Rs. 24,000. As per the age if multiplier of 16 is made' applicable, then the future loss of earnings comes to the tune of Rs. 3,84,000. whirl i deserves to be allowed. On perusal of the documents and the injured present in the court, I find it as a case in which he quires one attendant for his whole life Under the said head, Rs. 1,00,000/- may awarded with a view that if such amount is deposited, then by getting the inter his family members may provide him assistant to maintain his life. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,33,500/- towards medi expenses, however, the said amount of compensation may be maintained in addition to Rs. 10.000 towards future medical expenses making a total of Rs. 1,50.000 under the head of medical expenses. Also Rs. 50,000/- deserves to be granted towards pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. Simultaneously, Rs. 10,000/- further deserves to be granted for transportation and special diet. Accordingly. the total amount of compensation comes to the tune of Rs. 7,44,000. If we deduct the amount of compensation as allowed by the Tribunal, Rs. 3,88,500, from the said amount. then remaining amount comes to Rs. 3,55.500 which is liable to be enhanced. Thus, during the course of hearing and on taking note of the aforesaid considerations, in my opinion the a

ward passed by Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by Rs. 3,55,500/- without affecting the direction of the Tribunal regarding depositing the amount of compensation. 7. In view of the aforesaid. this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is held entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 3,55,500/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.