ORDER 1. In an accident that took place on 19-5-1994, the claimant suffered injuries. The injuries as prescribed by PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5, who are the doctors, are that the claimant sustained multiple injuries including extensive incarcerated injury over the right thigh and other injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 65% to 70%. 2. We have heard the parties. This appeal has been filed by the Managing Director, BMTC, the owner of the offending bus. The appeal is against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the enhancement made by the High Court. Before we proceed to examine the quantum of compensation, we may at this stage, recite the facts as to how the claimant conducted himself. 3. Claim petition was filed on 3-6-1994. It was dismissed in default on 12-3-1997. Thereafter, the claimant filed complaint before the Consumer Forum on 9-10-1997 for the same cause of action. In the said petition, he asserted that he is suffering out of the injuries sustained by him due to negligence of doctors. He filed a restoration application on 17-5-1998 before MACT but he did not disclose that he has also filed a petition before the Consumer Forum for compensation for the same cause of action. The restoration application was allowed on 15-7-1998. In his original claim, he made a claim of Rs 5,00,000. He filed an amendment application for a claiming Rs 25,00,000 including the original claim. The amendment application was allowed on 28-3-2001. 4. The claimant, in our view, has not approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with clean hands. In support of his claim, the claimant examined PW 3, the Area Manager of the company in which he was employed. PW 3 in his statement states that at the relevant time the claimant b was working as a salesman and he was due for promotion as Area Manager but he was not promoted because of the accident and if he was promoted as Area Manager he would have been getting the salary of Rs 9500 to Rs 10,000 p.m. As against this, the claimant examined himself as PW 1. He stated in examination-in-chief that he joined the company in 1990 as a Sales Manager. He joined the company in 1990. He stated in examination-in-chief that he joined the company in 1990 as a Sales Manager. He joined the company in 1990. His salary was Rs 5000 p.m. He was given c promotion by his company and thereafter his salary was increased by Rs 2000. Thereafter, he was given promotion as a Manager in Sales Division and was given a salary of more than Rs 10,000 p.m. In his claim petition, he has categorically stated that he was a Sales Officer and his salary was Rs 1650 p.m. At this stage, we, at the most, can say that the conduct of the claimant is unreasonable and unfair. Since somehow, he suffered permanent d disability to the extent of 65% to 70% of the whole body arising out of motor accident, we say no more. 5. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs 15,36,460 under the following heads with interest @ 9% p.a. (a) Medical attendant charges 68,400 (b) Medical bills 5,00,000 (c) Future medical expenses 1,50,000 (d) For plastic surgery 2,00,000 (e) Fracture of both the bones of right leg 75,000 (f) Movement of right hip and knee 2000 (g) Deglowing (sic) injury over the right leg anterior and posterior muscle exposed 20,000 (h) Abrasion over the right iliac fossa 2000 (i) Abrasion over the patella 2000 (j) Compound segmental fracture of shaft of right femur 30,000 (k) Loss of future income 3,72,060 (l) Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000 (m) Extra nourishment food and miscellaneous expenses 15,000 -------------- Total 15,36,460 6. While making the aforesaid calculation, the Tribunal has taken the salary of the claimant as Rs 2650 inclusive of Rs 1000 conveyance allowance. Conveyance allowance is not future loss of the income. It appears from the evidence on record and supported by the salary certificate issued by PW 3, and not disputed even by the claimant in his claim petition, that the salary of the claimant was Rs 650. The Tribunal, considering the claimant's disability of 65%, has applied the multiplier of 18 and taking his salary as Rs 2650 multiplied by 12 and multiplied by 18, the Tribunal has assessed the loss of future income at Rs 3,72,060. The Tribunal erred in taking the salary of the claimant as Rs 2650. The actual salary of the claimant was only Rs 1650. The Tribunal erred in taking the salary of the claimant as Rs 2650. The actual salary of the claimant was only Rs 1650. The Tribunal also erred in applying the 18 multiplier as it was only a case of injury and not a fatal accident. We have taken the modest view and applied the multiplier of 15. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to future loss of income of Rs 1650 x 12 x 15 = Rs 2,97,000. 7. Now, we proceed to deal with each head as mentioned above: (a) Medical attender charges: Rs 68,400 - In our view, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and, therefore, there is no interference. (b) Medical bills: Rs 5,00,000 - It appears, this claim is supported by vouchers and bills and, therefore, it is reasonable and accepted. . (c) Future medical expenses: Rs 1,50,000 - In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it is quite reasonable. (d) For plastic surgery: Rs 2,00,000 - Doctor, PW 5, in his deposition simply stated that the claimant may need plastic surgery. The accident had taken place on 19-5-1994. We are now in 2007. No plastic surgery has been carried out till today. Even otherwise, the amount under the heading of plastic surgery, which mayor may not happen, cannot be granted in the way it is sought to be done. We are, therefore, of the view that an award of Rs 2,00,000 under the heading plastic surgery is not justified and is, accordingly, set aside to that extent. (e)-(j) Award under Headings (e) to (j) amounting to Rs 1,31,000 given by the Tribunal is maintained. (k) Loss of future income - Loss of future income is reduced to Rs 2,97,000. (1) Loss of marriage prospects - The claimant was awarded Rs 1,00,000 under this heading which is not justified. It is, accordingly, set aside. It is also stated that the claimant has already got married. (m) Extra nourishment food and miscellaneous expenses - The Tribunal has awarded Rs 15,000 under this heading which is reasonable and is maintained. Therefore, the net result is that the total award of Rs 15,36,460 given by he Tribunal is now reduced to Rs 11,61,400. 8. It is also stated that the claimant has already got married. (m) Extra nourishment food and miscellaneous expenses - The Tribunal has awarded Rs 15,000 under this heading which is reasonable and is maintained. Therefore, the net result is that the total award of Rs 15,36,460 given by he Tribunal is now reduced to Rs 11,61,400. 8. Aggrieved by the award given by the Tribunal, both the parties filed appeal before the High Court, the appellant herein for reduction of the award and the respondent herein for the enhancement of the award. The High Court a by its impugned order, while rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellant, allowed the appeal filed by the claimant and enhanced the award to Rs 21,60,460 with interest at 12% p.a. Under the heading "fracture of both the bones of right leg", an award of Rs 75,000 by the Tribunal has been enhanced to Rs 1,50,000 by the High Court. Under the heading "compound segmental fracture of shaft of right femur", the Tribunal has awarded b Rs 30,000 but the same was enhanced to Rs 60,000 by the High Court. Under the heading "loss of future income", against an award of Rs 3,72,060, the High Court enhanced it to Rs 7,56,000 taking the salary of the claimant as Rs 6000 p.m. While taking the salary of the claimant at Rs 6000, the High Court has relied upon the deposition of PW 3, the Area Manager, who stated that the claimant would have been promoted in future to the post of Area c Manager and his salary could have been increased to Rs 9500-Rs 10,000 but because of accident he could not be promoted. 9. Future promotions, in our view, are uncertain. It mayor may not happen depending on the exigency of service. In our view, therefore, the High Court was in error in calculating the loss of future income taking the salary of the claimant in the promotion post. Under this heading, we have d already reduced the amount to Rs 2,97,000. The High Court also enhanced the amount of Rs 15,000 to Rs 50,000 under the heading "extra nourishment food and miscellaneous expenses". The enhancements by the High Court under the headings "fracture of both the bones of right leg", "compound segmental fracture of shaft of right femur" and "extra nourishment food and miscellaneous expenses" are set aside. The High Court also enhanced the amount of Rs 15,000 to Rs 50,000 under the heading "extra nourishment food and miscellaneous expenses". The enhancements by the High Court under the headings "fracture of both the bones of right leg", "compound segmental fracture of shaft of right femur" and "extra nourishment food and miscellaneous expenses" are set aside. Therefore, the net amount that the e claimant is entitled to now comes to Rs 11,61,400. 10. The High Court also added conveyance charges for to and fro journey from Bangalore to Apollo Hospital at Chennai for two persons i.e. the claimant and a companion. From the evidence of the doctor, it appears that the claimant is visiting Apollo Hospital at Chennai frequently for treatment as advised by the doctor. The conveyance charge was not awarded by the Tribunal. In our view, considering the fact that the claimant has to go to Apollo Hospital at Chennai for proper check-up, the grant of conveyance charges of Rs 1,00,000 by the High Court is justified. 11. The net result is that the claimant would now get an amount of Rs 12,61,400 with an interest @ 9% p.a. The interest is payable w.e.f. 15-71998 i.e. from the date the restoration petition of the claimant was allowed by 9 the Tribunal. While making calculation of payment, any payment already made in the mean time shall be adjusted. The balance amount, if any, shall be deposited within eight weeks from today before the Tribunal. On the amount being deposited, the claimant will be at liberty to withdraw the same. 12. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.