the partnership concern or avocation as Architect at the rate claimed by the petitioner. The Tribunal took into account the disability as certified by P.W.2, the doctor, and the petitioner could not have asked the Tribunal to assess such disability at any higher percentage than what was stated by P.W.2 himself. P.W.1 or P.W.2 did not also indicate in their evidence that the functional disability in carrying on the avocations of P.W.1 would have been more. Therefore, calculating the compensation with reference to the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and a multiplier of 17 applicable to the then age of the petitioner cannot be interfered with, but deducting one-third towards the personal expenses of the petitioner may be inappropriate, as the petitioner is still alive and it is only to place him in the same position in which he would have been but for the accident that the compensation is assessed. If so, the compensation has to be enhanced by another Rs.20,000/under that head. The compensation granted towards medical expenses was based on the medical bills and more than Rs.3,500/- were added to the quantum of expenditure shown by the bills; obviously it will meet further inevitable expenses which the petitioner could have incurred during the course of treatment. But towards pain and suffering in the light of the petitioner undergoing more than one surgery and having been confined to the hospital as in-patient for a considerable time, the Tribunal could have granted a total of Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- it granted. The compensation granted towards loss of amenities on permanent disability at Rs.25,000/- also is at a reasonable level and on the whole, increasing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs.25,000/- appears to answer the requirement to grant just and adequate compensation.
