N. C. Jain, C J. (Acting) — This appeal has been filed by the State of Nagaland and others against the Award of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,04,000 to the claimant-respondent, Sanwatiba Ao who was injured in a vehicular accident. The Award has been given under the following heading: (1) For pecuniary loss, the assessment is based on the last pay of Rs.850 per month. Excluding the time for uncertainties of life, 20 years should be taken as the accepted member of multiplier in this case. Then the actual future pecuniary loss is worked out as Rs.850/- x 12 x 20 = Rs.2,04,000/-. (2) Expenditures for medical treatment, transport charges etc on the basis of the vouchers enclosed in the application of the claimant dated 10.8.92 amounting to Rs.20,000/- is granted. (3) Rs.40,000/- is awarded for constant pain, suffering and mental agony as the claimant has been bed ridden from the time of accident. (4) Rs. 15,000 is awarded for loss of amenities of normal activities, consortium and his service to the family. (5) Rs. 15,000 is awarded for special diet. (6) Rs.20,000 is awarded for personal attendant to the claimant. (7) Rs. 10,000 is awarded for loss of his service, supervision and care to his four minor children. The appeal has been filed for reduction of the compensation amount. The counsel for the appellant while limiting his prayer for reducing the compensation amount under heading one, has vehemently argued that the injured could not be granted Rs.2,04,000/- on the basis of the multiplier system. The precise argument of the State counsel is that interest theory should have been kept in view for determining the loss of income as the present case was one of injury and not death. The reliance has been placed by the counsel upon ratio of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1996 SC 1247, Smti Sarala Dixit & another vs. Balwant Yadav & others. While there cannot be any dispute and in fact there is none with the proposition of law as has been laid down by the Apex Court and in the present case some reduction would be called for keeping in view the theory of interest, but we are not interfering with the award for the reasons to be elaborated in the succeeding paragraph. 2. 2. The injured has admittedly suffered hundred percent disability and has become bed ridden for the rest of his life. He was aged 33 years at the time of accident having his wife and four minor children. The injured was a school teacher drawing a salary of Rs.850/- per month at the time accident. With the passage of time his salary would have been increased manifold. The accident took place on 30.4.83. The Court can take judicial notice of the existing salary of the school teacher in Nagaland. The Tribunal has not granted any future medical expenditure. Rs.40,000 towards pain and suffering is quite on the lower side. Towards loss of expectation of life, no amount has been awarded. Even for loss of amenities of life Rs. 15,000 is fairly low and should have been more. For personal attendance 8 of the claimants Rs.20,000 is quite inadequate, it should have been a particular amount every month for the rest of the life towards the salary of personal attendant. This is known to every one. Even is this Court reducing the amount of compensation under heading No.l, taking into consideration the grant of legal compensation under other headings, we are of the firm view that the present is not a fit case for reducing the amount. The award is just, fair and most reasonable. 3. For the reasons recorded above the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. The awarded amount minus the amount already paid along with 12 per centinterest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation be paid within three months from today.