ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.3,52,900/- awarded by the Tribunal, is in appeal.

2. The Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 20%.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant points out that as per the evidence of PW-3 a Senior Neurosurgeon, the claimant, as a result of the accident, was having impairment in visuo-constuctive perceptual gestalt, which has been recorded by the Tribunal in the following terms in its judgment.

"Further deposed that, petitioner has impairment in Visuo-constructive perceptual gestalt, spatial relation, visuo- motor co-ordination, spatial perception, reasoning, visual learning, visual memory, immediate recall and delayed recall, bilateral prietal lobe predominantly right and right temporal lobe involved. Further deposed that, moderate level cognitive disability of 50%. Further deposed that, severe hearing loss of 60 db for PTA, SS db for SRT, hearing disability of 40% weakness in left upper limb 4/5 disability of 15%. Further he deposed that, he has decreased smell and taste and disability of 10%. Further deposed that, total neurological disability as per DGHS telescopic sum formula is 72.75%. Accordingly he assessed disability for the petitioner at 72.75%. Further he produced ENT opinion at Ex.P.18 neurobehavioural and cognitive assessment at Ex.P.19."

4. In light of this evidence by the Senior Neurosurgeon, the observation of the Tribunal that the assessment was on higher side and it could be reduced to 20% is improper. If the Neurosurgeon has narrated all those injuries and has also stated that the IQ of the claimant had reduced to

62, it would be appropriate to treat the disability of the claimant at 72.75% and not at 20%.

5. The claimant contended that he was earning a sum of Rs.20,500/-. However, apart from a letterhead issued by his employer, there is no evidence to indicate that this sum was being remitted to his bank account, more so, when he claimed that he was working under a Company.

6. In this view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to accept the Certificate produced by the claimant and it would be more appropriate to adopt the notional income of Rs.12,500/- determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year

2018.

7. As the claimant was aged about 63 years as on the date of the accident, granting of future prospects would not arise.

8. Since the claimant was aged 63 years, a multiplier of '7' will have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.7,63,875/- (12,500X7X12X72.75%) towards 'loss of future earnings'.

9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'.

10. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant and the fact that he has become disabled to the extent of more than 30%, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'.

11. The amount of Rs.2,10,400/- awarded towards 'medical expenses' being based on documentary relevance, is affirmed.

12. The claimant was hospitalized for 10 days. Having regard to the age of the claimant, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards 'Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges'.

13. The Tribunal has taken the laid-up period as three months. Since the claimant has suffered serious injuries which has resulted in 72.75% disability, it would be appropriate to treat the laid-up period as six months and award a sum of Rs.75,000/- (12,500X6) towards 'loss of income during the laid-up period'.

14. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: