T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award in MVC No. 1082 of 1989 made by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-X, Bangalore, awarding a sum of Rs. 83,000 as compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant-claimant in an accident that had taken place on 1. 12. 1988 at about 5. 45 p. m. in Anadanagar at the junction of the 5th Main Road while appellant was the pillion rider in the scooter bearing No. CAX 8477, which was hit by a jeep bearing No. MYE 7575, resultant effect of which was the injuries sustained by the appellant. ( 2 ) IT appears that the appellant was a retired Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry and Soil Science in the university of Agricultural Science College, Hebbal. He has several academic distinctions and is associated member of several important committees. It was his case that driver of the jeep was negligent and the accident in question had occurred. He claimed Rs. 3,86,000 as compensation for the injuries caused to him. ( 3 ) THE driver of the jeep who was made respondent No. 2 before the trial court has remained absent and was placed ex pane. The respondent No. 3, the insurance company, alone filed objections admitting the validity of the policy issued in favour of the respondent No. 1. Non-joinder of the parties was raised in the objection statement, but the same cured later by the amendment under which they were made respondent nos. 4 to 6. It was further stated in the objection statement that the accident was due to contributory negligence to the extent of 100 per cent by the scooterist and it was not due to negligence of the jeep driver alone. ( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, framing an issue on the question of negligence on the part of either the jeep driver or the scooterist, the court below came to the conclusion on the evidence adduced that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. MYE 7575 driven by respondent no. 2. ( 5 ) ON the question of quantum, the court below has granted a total sum of rs. 83,000 on the following heads: ( 6 ) MR. Sundaramurthy appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a highly qualified technical person. 2. ( 5 ) ON the question of quantum, the court below has granted a total sum of rs. 83,000 on the following heads: ( 6 ) MR. Sundaramurthy appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a highly qualified technical person. He was a retired Professor and Head of the department of Chemistry and Soil Science. He was consultant in soil testing, fertiliser and other related agricultural purposes. He further submitted that the injuries that were sustained were grievous in nature and that the appellant was in-patient in the hospital for about four and half months, during which period he underwent four operations on different points of time. It was further submitted that a claim of Rs. 50,000 ought to have been granted for medical expenses, taking into consideration the duration of his stay in the hospital as well as operations conducted on him. A further claim of rs. 20,000 was made for future medical expenses and cost of the treatment on the ground that even after operations he was not well and the total disability was 72. 5 per cent. Therefore, in respect of future medical expenses, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a minimum Rs. 20,000. He further claimed that the damages for grievous injury and permanent disability ought to have been fixed at Rs. 1,00,000, apart from damages for mental shock, pain and suffering at reasonable sum of Rs. 1,00,000. It was further submitted that he was the consultant and because of the accident he lost his power and was not able to continue the consultancy service and his excellence in education could not be utilised either in public service or for his personal earning capacity. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr, R. Jayaprakash appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that the scooterist is also responsible for the accident and the finding on the issue regarding negligence ought to have been against the appellant as contributory negligence was 100 per cent on the part of the scooterist. Even on the quantum, according to the learned counsel, it is on the higher side and a man who is aged about 64 years on the date of the accident has been adequately compensated for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. ( 8 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the respective counsel. Even on the quantum, according to the learned counsel, it is on the higher side and a man who is aged about 64 years on the date of the accident has been adequately compensated for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. ( 8 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the respective counsel. ( 9 ) THE fact that the claimant was a retired professor from the University of agricultural Sciences and that he has been attending various examination evaluation and consultancy meetings is not in dispute. The appellant was also a member of the river Valley Basin Maser Plan Preparation and also a member of the Karnataka pollution Control Advisory Board. No doubt his income was only Rs. 1,500, but the status he was enjoying in life cannot be compensated or cannot be paid in terms of the income he got only as a sitting fee for attending the meetings of the Committees/ board mentioned above. The appellant has been very precise in correctly speaking about monthly income at Rs. 1,500 and the court has taken that as the correct income and calculation and granted a sum of rs. 9,000 for the loss towards the income taking into consideration the fact that he was in-patient in the hospital for nearly six months. That loss of income for the period of 6 months which is based on the saying of the appellant cannot be invalid and the same is confirmed. ( 10 ) SO far as the shock, pain and suffering is concerned, we find that there is total disability of 72. 5 per cent and an old man who wants to live peacefully in the evening of his life has suffered injuries which are certainly grievous in nature. The injuries suffered by him are as follows: "lacerated wound lower 1/3 (L) leg extending circumferentially around the leg. Gastrocnemius muscle cut and exposed. Post tibia + toe mounts exposed great toe + compound fracture of both bones of (L) leg with arsenic injury; fracture of (F) clavicle. " ( 11 ) THERE was comminuted fracture of left tibia with skin loss which was found to be a compound fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of right clavicle. It appears he was in the hospital for the first spell from 1. 12. 88 to 13. 2. 1989. " ( 11 ) THERE was comminuted fracture of left tibia with skin loss which was found to be a compound fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of right clavicle. It appears he was in the hospital for the first spell from 1. 12. 88 to 13. 2. 1989. But though he was discharged, his suffering continued because of the injuries sustained by him and he was obliged to get himself readmitted in a private nursing home and then again he got himself admitted in Victoria hospital on 20. 2. 1989 and was there as inpatient till 20. 4. 1989. He has been operated there, skin-grafting has been done and external fixtures were applied and subsequently POP was applied. Thus suffering was for a period of more than four months and 19 days cannot be compensated in the way in which the trial court has given the quantum. It is also seen that after he got himself admitted again in the hospital on 22. 6. 89 for four days and electrical stimulator was applied at the fracture site for ten days to set right the fracture. Thus he had to undergo enormous pain and injury and suffering and in our opinion we feel that a sum of Rs. 50,000 shall be granted under the head of shock, pain and suffering. ( 12 ) SO far as medical expenses are concerned, appellant has claimed Rs. 50,000 as medical expenses in the claim petition and the court below granted only Rs. 9,663 for medical expenses and Rs. 10,000 for future medical expenses including conveyance and incidental charges. Taking into consideration the period of his stay in the hospital as in-patient for about 145 days and he having undergone four operations, we feel that grant of Rs. 40,000 towards medical expenses will be proper. In respect of earning capacity or future income, the trial court granted a sum of Rs. 19,000 taking into consideration only the income earned by him when he was earning about rs. 1,500 per month, which he himself claimed. Being a consultant his services might have been requisitioned by various other organisations also and such future income cannot be so much at a small sum of Rs. 19,000 taking into consideration only the income earned by him when he was earning about rs. 1,500 per month, which he himself claimed. Being a consultant his services might have been requisitioned by various other organisations also and such future income cannot be so much at a small sum of Rs. 19,000, taking into consideration his qualifications and he being associated with so many institutions, including the river Valley Basin Master Plan Preparation, we feel it proper to grant a sum of rs. 30,000 towards earning capacity or future income. So far as loss of amenities of life is concerned, the court below has granted only Rs. 5,000. The court below relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and though finds that the appellant has lost certain amenities in life and he could not walk and cannot sit, it has granted only a sum of Rs. 5,000, which we feel is grossly inadequate. On that head, we propose to grant a sum of Rs. 15,000 as the loss of amenities. Thus, the total sum item wise comes to Rs. 1,45,000 taking into consideration the age of the person, qualifications, we round the compensation to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, i. e. , Rs. 83,000, shall stand enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 and an award be drawn in the favour of the appellant for the said sum. ( 13 ) SO far as interest is concerned, 6 per cent interest has been granted by the trial court. In line, we feel grant of 6 per cent is certainly on the lower side and we feel it proper to grant interest at 9 per cent on the total sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from the date of the petition till the date of payment. ( 14 ) THE appeal is allowed partly. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .