JUDGMENT N.K. PATIL, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the Impugned judgment and award dated 3-8-2006 passed in MVC 1808/2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IV Bangalore, City, The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,24,120/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against; the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the Appellant in a road traffic accident. Since the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement. 2. The brief facts of the case are, on 27-1-2005 at 9.45 a.m. the appellant was travelling in KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-7242 and when it was coming near Bhoomasandra in Anekal Taluk, a Tata 407 bearing No. KA-05-B-3119 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the bus. On account of the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, She was admitted at St. Johns Hospital as in-patient and undergone a surgery. Thereafter she was admitted at St. Martha’s Hospital and another surgery was done. It is the case of the appellant that she has spent. huge sums towards medical expenses, conveyance and attendant charges. She filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,24,120/- with interest at, 8% p.m. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant at the out-set is that the Tribunal committed grave error in awarding lesser compensation under various heads. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the nature of injuries sustained, the period of treatment undergone and the disability. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified awarding just and reasonable compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer has contended that the impugned judgment and award is just and proper and compensation is awarded after due consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for. 5. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified awarding just and reasonable compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer has contended that the impugned judgment and award is just and proper and compensation is awarded after due consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for. 5. After careful consideration of submissions made on both sides and perusal of the impugned judgment, the only point for consideration is “whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?” 6. The occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident are not in dispute. The appellant has sustained Type 3 compound fracture of lower 1/3rd right humerus, compound fracture of olicranon bone loss and Ulnas/radial nerve palsy right. She was an in-patient in different hospitals and underwent two surgeries, She might have spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, attendant charges and conveyance. The doctor has assessed 60% disability to the hand and 20% to the whole body. The appellant has to suffer the disability through-out her life. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the pain, agony and suffering during treatment period. We presume that she might have taken bed rest for three months. She was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident. The proper multiplier is 16. 7. Taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, we deem it proper to award Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering as against. Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant and conveyance charges as against Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 9,000/-towards loss of income during treatment period at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- for three months as against Rs. 3,000/-, and Rs. 1,15,200/- (Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x ‘16’ x 20/100) towards loss of future income as against Rs. 36,120/-. The medical expenses of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. 8. Thus, the total, compensation would be Rs. 2,74,200/- as against Rs. 1,24,120/-. There will be enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,50,080/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 9. The instant appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 3-8-2006 in M.V.C. No. 1303/2005 is hereby modified awarding Rs. 1,24,120/-. There will be enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,50,080/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 9. The instant appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 3-8-2006 in M.V.C. No. 1303/2005 is hereby modified awarding Rs. 1,50,080/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 10. The 2nd respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within three months. Out of enhanced compensation, 50% with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the appellant in any Nationalised Bank for a period of five years and the appellant Is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest. 11. The remaining 50% with proportionate interest shall be released to the appellant. 12. Draw the award accordingly. 13. Since the main matter is disposed of on merits, this miscellaneous Civil application does not survive for consideration. The same is accordingly disposed of.