JUDGMENT :- (This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV act against the Judgment and Award dated: 28.05.2005 passed in MVC No.1442/2004 on the file of the VII Addl. Judge, Member, MACT-3, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-3), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.) Admit: 2. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 28th May 2005 passed in M.V.C. No.1442/2004 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (for short, “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.3,57,000/- with interest as 6% per annum, awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for Rs.30,00 lakhs, is inadequate. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 27 years, working as ‘Senior Accounts Executive’ at M/s. Narayanan, Patil and Ramesh Chartered Accountants, getting salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The case of the appellant is that, at about 11:30 P.M., on 31-01-2004, when the he was going in his motor cycle bearing No.KA-05/L-7472, near Nettakallappa Circle, on K.R. Road, a Tata Sumo came at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the motor cycle of the appellant, due to which, he sustained right tempero parietal bone fracture with right fronto temporal large EDH, left tempero parietal depressed fracture with EDH contusion, fracture shaft femur, fracture of digital end radius left, left petrous bone fracture and other injuries in the accident. Immediately he was shifted to Nimhans and thereafter to Sagar Apollo Hospital, where he took treatment for a period of 17 days. It is his case that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably. 3. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 28th May 2005. 3. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 28th May 2005. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.3,57,000/- with interest at 6% annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for Insurance Company for considerable length of time. 5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards pain and sufferings, conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of income during treatment period, loss of future income, loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and towards future medical expenses. Further, he submitted that, the Tribunal has not assessed the income of the appellant is proper perspective for the reason that, the appellant was drawing salary of Rs.18,000/- per month and to substantiate the said submission, he has examined the employer. In spite of that, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the appellant at Rs.11,200/- per month. The appellant has sustained the injuries stated above and the Doctor has assessed 26% disability towards whole body. The Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards loss of future income, but awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards disability. Therefore, he submitted that, reasonable enhancement may be made in respect of all the heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 6. As against this, learned counsel for Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. However, after going through the original records available on file, he fairly submitted that, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, reasonable enhancement may be made in accordance with law. 7. However, after going through the original records available on file, he fairly submitted that, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, reasonable enhancement may be made in accordance with law. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is: “Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?” After critical evaluation of the original records available on file, threadbare, it emerges that the appellant was aged about 27 years, working as ‘Senior Accounts Executive’ in the Office of Chartered Accountants, drawing salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. He was also pursuing Chartered Accountant’s course. It is not in dispute that the appellant has sustained the aforesaid injuries in view of the accident that occurred on the aforesaid date, time and place. To substantiate the salary drawn by appellant, he has examined his employer, viz. PW3, who has stated in unequivocal terms that the appellant, was in fact, drawing salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.11,200/- per month, which is the basic salary drawn by him at that time. Therefore, relying on Ex.P26, the Salary Certificate coupled with the oral evidence of PW3, the employer of the appellant, we deem it proper to take the income of the appellant at Rs.18,000/- per month. If professional tax and income tax is deducted from the said sum, the net income comes to Rs.14,000/- per month, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for both the parties. The Doctor has assessed permanent physical disability at 26% in respect of whole body and the same is accepted. The appropriate multiplier applicable, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ), having regard to the age of the appellant, being 27 years, is ‘17’. Accordingly, we determine compensation towards loss of future income at Rs.7,42,560/- (i.e. Rs.14,000/- x 12 x ‘17’ x 26/100) and award the same, as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards disability. 8. Further, the Tribunal erred in not awarding adequate compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and other heads. Accordingly, we determine compensation towards loss of future income at Rs.7,42,560/- (i.e. Rs.14,000/- x 12 x ‘17’ x 26/100) and award the same, as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards disability. 8. Further, the Tribunal erred in not awarding adequate compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and other heads. Admittedly, the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 17 days and underwent two surgeries, during which period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards the aforesaid expenses. Having regard to the nature of injuries as aforesaid, he would have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony. In view of the injuries and the operations, he would have been away from his work and taken bed rest at least for a period of six months. It is stated that the appellant has underwent multiple transfusions and was treated for evacuation of EDH and was operated for closed reduction and internal fixation for fracture of femur. The Doctor has assessed permanent disability in respect of whole body at 26%. The appellant, being aged only 27 years, at the time of accident, has to pull on the entire life with this disability, discomfort and unhappiness. The Doctor has opined that the appellant has complained of loss of memory, lack of concentration and has to undergo one more operation for removal of implants. With these difficulties and disability, the appellant would definitely not be in a position to perform his duties as he was doing earlier. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, we deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs.60,000/-, Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs.5,000/-, Rs.84,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period of six months at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per month, as against Rs.66,000/-, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities, unhappiness, and discomfort as against Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards future medical expenses as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 9. However, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.1,81,000/- towards expenses, as per the medical bills produced at Ex.P12 series. Therefore, it does not call for interference. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. 9. However, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.1,81,000/- towards expenses, as per the medical bills produced at Ex.P12 series. Therefore, it does not call for interference. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 28th May 2005 passed in M.V.C.No.1442/2004 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.11,60.560/- as against Rs.3,57.000/-awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum (excluding interest on a sum of Rs.18,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses), from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows: Towards Pain and Sufferings Rs. 75,000/- Towards Loss of amenities & enjoyment in life Rs. 40,000/- Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 1,81,000/- Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- Towards Loss of earning during treatment period Rs. 84,000/- Towards loss of future income Rs. 7,42,560/- Towards future medical expenses Rs. 18,000/- TOTAL Rs.11,60,560/- The Insurance Company is directed to deposit to the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,03,560/-, with interest thereon at 6%per annum(excluding the interest on Rs.18,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses), within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. On such deposit by the Insurance Company, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.8,03,560/-, a sum of Rs. Six Lakhs with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant for a period of five years, renewable for another Five years, with permission to him to withdraw the periodical interest. The remaining sum of Rs.2,03,560/-with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. Office to draw award, accordingly.