JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J: This appeal arising out of the common judgment and award dated 22.02.2006 passed in MVC No.476/2005 on the file of the Addl. MACT, Saundatti at Ramdurg. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment and award awarded a sum of Rs.7,29,300/- with interest at 8% p.a. on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, disproportionate and excessive and is liable to be reduced substantially, hence the appellant-Corporation felt necessitated to present this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The claimant-respondent claims that he is aged about 34 years and he is an agriculturist by profession. He was hale and healthy and when things stood thus, at 7.45 a.m. on 17.10.2004 when he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA.29.K.9353 from Mudhol to Obalapur Tanda, the said motorcycle was driven in moderate speed with care and caution following the traffic rules and regulations on the left side of the road at that time KSRTC bus bearing No.KA.22.F. 1329 driven by its driver in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle as a result of which the appellant fell down and sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to hospital as per Ex.P14. The appellant sustained fracture of left hand with dislocation of hip and fracture of middle third right tibia and fibula, fracture of left superior and inferior pubic ram, perilunate dislocation of right wrist joint and head injury. The doctor has assessed the disability at 55% to the left limb and 40% to the right lower limb and 30% to the right upper limb. On account of the injury sustained in the road traffic accident, he has undergone treatment for a period of 31 days in the hospital and also undergone one operation and implants have been inserted. Therefore, he filed a claim petition for compensation against the appellant-Corporation and owner of the offending vehicle. The said claim came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn after assessing the oral and documentary evidence on record and other relevant material on file has allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs.7,29,300/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The said compensation is excessive and requires reduction and hence the present appeal. 3. The said compensation is excessive and requires reduction and hence the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant for a considerable length of time. After careful evaluation of the records threadbare and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, what emerges is that the Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence has awarded just and reasonable compensation in a sum of Rs.77,300/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment charges. Therefore, it does not call for interference. 4. The Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities. The said compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and contrary to the evidence on record. It is significant to note that the appellant has undergone treatment for a period of 31 days as an inpatient and undergone surgery. He must have suffered pain and agony and the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the nature and duration of the treatment, pain and agony suffered and the doctor has assessed the disability as stated above at 50% to the left lower limb, 40% to the right lower limb and 30% to the right upper limb which comes to a total of 125% disability and 1/3 of 125% comes to 41% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the disability of 70% to the whole body without assigning any valid reasons and contrary to the well settled law of the Apex Court and this Court in a catena of judgments. Therefore, taking these facts into consideration and nature of injuries sustained and the duration of treatment undergone by the claimant and the pain and agony suffered and the discomforts he has to suffer throughout his life, he being an agricultural coolie, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.60,000/-. towards pain and suffering as against a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.4,05,000/-. towards loss of future income. towards pain and suffering as against a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.4,05,000/-. towards loss of future income. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. and committed an error in taking 75% disability to the whole body and rightly applied the multiplier of 15 and determined the compensation for loss of future income at Rs.4,05,000/- is excessive and it needs modification by reduction taking the income at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and percentage of permanent disability to the whole body at 41% and the appropriate multiplier applicable is 15. Therefore, we re-determine the compensation towards loss of future income at Rs.2,21,400/- (Rs.3,000/- x 41/100 x 12 x 15). 6. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding compensation during the laid up period. We assess the income at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. and he has undergone hospitalisation for 31 days and has undergone surgery and the doctor might have suggested bed rest and follow-up treatment for at least a period of three months and we award a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. 7. Further the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenses. It is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone surgery and he has to undergo another surgery for removal of implants. Taking this fact into consideration, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future medical expenses. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,47,700/- as against Rs.7,29,300/-. The net reduction comes to Rs.2,81,600/-. 6. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified and a compensation of Rs.4,47,700/- is awarded as against Rs.7,29,300/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The break-up is as follows: 1. Future loss of income Rs. 2,21,400/- 2. Injury, pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/- 3. Medical expenses and incidental charges Rs. 77,300/- 4. Conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 9,000/- 6. The break-up is as follows: 1. Future loss of income Rs. 2,21,400/- 2. Injury, pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/- 3. Medical expenses and incidental charges Rs. 77,300/- 4. Conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 9,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 4,47,700/- (iii) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount awarded as above after deducting the amount already deposited with interest at 8% p.a. within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and award. (iv) Out of the compensation awarded 75% with proportionate interest shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalised/scheduled bank for a period of five years renewable for another period of five years. (v) The respondent-claimant is entitled to draw the periodical interest. (vi) The remaining 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the respondent immediately after deposit by the insurance company. (vii) Draw up the award accordingly. Appeal allowed in part.