A. M. FAROOQ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant in M. V. C. No. 1576 of 1998 on the file of the M. A. C. T. SCCH-V at Bangalore seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 17. 3. 1998 at about 10 a. m. when appellant was crossing the road at Lingarajapuram in front of Amrut Tent a lorry bearing No. MEL 5405 came from south to north in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the appellant as a result of which the appellant fell down and sustained severe bodily injuries. He was shifted to a nursing home immediately where first aid was given and thereafter, was shifted to Lady Curzon and Bowring hospital, Bangalore and that he was an inpatient there and it is in evidence that he was treated for more than six months for the injuries. The claimant has sought for a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000. ( 3 ) THE respondent insurance company contested the petition but admitted that the vehicle in question involved in the accident was insured with the company. M. A. C. T. found that the accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 3 and accordingly, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which is insured with the respondent insurance company. Thereafter, it went to assess the compensation to be awarded. In the accident in question, the appellant has suffered the following injuries: (1) Multiple fracture of the pelvis involving both the iliac bones and pubic rami. (2) Segmental fracture of the right femur. (3) Fracture both bones of right leg. (4) Fracture head of left fibula with suspected posterior popliteal nerve, urethral injury and blunt injury to the abdomen. PW 2 is the doctor who has treated the appellant throughout. His evidence show that the appellant was given blood transfusion and resuscitation was done since he was in a shock; that there was urethral and abdominal injuries which were treated by the urologists and general surgeon respectively. ( 4 ) THAT on 22. 5. 1998 the right femur fracture was operated upon and interlocking nails were fixed. The fracture bones of right leg and pelvic fracture were treated conservatively. ( 4 ) THAT on 22. 5. 1998 the right femur fracture was operated upon and interlocking nails were fixed. The fracture bones of right leg and pelvic fracture were treated conservatively. That above knee, POP cast was applied to the right lower limb and he was discharged on 11. 7. 1998 and advised follow-up action. According to the doctor patient took treatment for nearly 10 to 12 months. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence of the doctor that the appellant suffered fracture injuries all over his body. Both his legs were fractured and there were injuries on the urethral and abdominal region. He was treated for more than 10 months after discharge from the hospital. ( 5 ) THE court below considering the fractures and other injuries and the suffering of the appellant granted Rs. 25,000 which in my view, is much less considering the injuries, pain and agony suffered by the appellant. At least he should have been granted Rs. 40,000 towards the head pain and suffering. ( 6 ) EVEN though the claimant could not produce any material showing that he had spent more than Rs. 15,000, the evidence on record shows that after discharge he was taking treatment for nearly 10 months. The government doctor himself has spoken about it. The Claims Tribunal has granted rs. 17,000 towards medical expenses. This appears to be quite unreasonable considering the treatment taken by the appellant and going to the hospital for more than 10 months. In my view, he should be granted rs. 25,000 towards the medical expenses, attendant charges, food and nourishment, etc. ( 7 ) APPELLANT was a delivery boy working under PW 3, a hardware shop owner. He has stated that he was earning Rs. 4,500 but, no record has been produced by the said person. The court below has rightly taken that he would have earned Rs. 2,000 per month and granted Rs. 12,000 towards loss of income during the period when he was under treatment which appears to be in order. ( 8 ) SO far as the loss of earning capacity is concerned, PW 2, doctor who had examined the appellant on 29. 12. 2001 has found that the appellant was limping and using crutches for walking. That there was shortening of right lower limb by 3 x 5 x 1/2 inch (Sic.) and left lower limb by 1/2 inch. ( 8 ) SO far as the loss of earning capacity is concerned, PW 2, doctor who had examined the appellant on 29. 12. 2001 has found that the appellant was limping and using crutches for walking. That there was shortening of right lower limb by 3 x 5 x 1/2 inch (Sic.) and left lower limb by 1/2 inch. That there was restriction of movement of right hip joint, abduction was 20 degrees, adduction 10 degrees, external rotation 10 degrees and internal rotation 10 degrees. That there was restriction of right knee joint by 10 degrees and possible flexion 70 degrees. There was wasting of muscles of both lower limbs. According to pw 2 doctor, X-ray revealed malunited fracture of the right femur with implants instituted and malunited fracture of both bones of right leg. He found old fractures of pelvis. According to PW 2 doctor he could assess the disability to the appellant at 55 per cent of the lower limbs and at around 30 per cent to the whole body. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the fact that the appellant was earning Rs. 24,000 per annum and adopting 16 multiplier which is correct multiplier adopted by the lower court and taking into consideration the disability of the appellant to do any work in future, it is very reasonable to allow 50 per cent of the income towards loss of future earning capacity which comes to Rs. 1,92,000 (i. e. , 50 per cent of Rs. 3,84,000 ). ( 10 ) THE court below has not granted any compensation towards future medical expenses and loss of amenities in life. In my view, he should have been granted future medical expenses and further granted compensation towards loss of amenities in life. He was, therefore, entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards that. ( 11 ) THUS, in my view, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation amount of rs. 2,94,000. The trial court has granted 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The said interest awarded by the lower court shall stand. ( 12 ) IN the result, this appeal is partly allowed and in modification of the award made by the Claims Tribunal, there shall be an award for a sum of Rs. 2,94,000 which shall carry interest at 9 per cent per annum. The said interest awarded by the lower court shall stand. ( 12 ) IN the result, this appeal is partly allowed and in modification of the award made by the Claims Tribunal, there shall be an award for a sum of Rs. 2,94,000 which shall carry interest at 9 per cent per annum. The respondent insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount with interest within eight weeks from today before the Claims Tribunal. After the insurance company has deposited the enhanced amount, the Claims Tribunal shall direct depositing of the portion of the amounts in fixed deposit for a certain period after hearing the appellant. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .