Judgment : This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 18/04/2007 passed in MVC No.6370/2005 on the file of the XIX Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-17), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation with 12% interest. 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 18th April 2007, passed in MVC No.6370/2005, by the XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-17), (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `6,55,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for `10,00,000/-, is adequate. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 55 years, working as Managing plumbing and electrical maintenance and was earning `12,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 8:10 P.M. on 20-08-2005 on Swamy Vivekananda Road, near Adarsha Theatre junction, BMTC Bus stop, on account of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-01/F – 1899 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the front left side wheel of the bus went on both the legs of the appellant and he sustained grievous and multiple fractures to his legs. Due to the severe injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to Borwing and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore and from there to Hosmat Hospital, where he was treated as in-patient. 3. It is his further case that, on account of the accident, he sustained injuries stated above and for the said treatment, 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. 4. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant flied the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `10.00 lakhs against the respondent Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18th April, 2007. 4. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant flied the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `10.00 lakhs against the respondent Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18th April, 2007. 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 `6,55,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant claimant and respondent Corporation. 6. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal is not justified in accepting the whole body permanent disability at 60% as assessed by the Doctor when in fact, the appellant has suffered amputation of his right leg above knee, at this old age. In support of her case, she drew my specific attention to the evidence of PW2. Doctor. In his evidence, he has stated that when he examined the patient recently on 09/02/2007, he found that the appellant had healed surgical scars present over the left leg, blackish discoloration of skin present over the anterior aspect of left ankle and dorsum of foot, movements of the great toe of the left foot are restricted, movement so the left shoulder, left knee and left ankle are restricted. He has assessed the disability at 15% to the left upper limb, 45% towards left lower limb, 100% towards right over limb and 60% in respect of whole body. Therefore, she submits that having regard to the nature of injuries and the disability suffered to both the legs, the Tribunal should have at best re-assessed the whole body disability at 100%. Further, she submits that the Tribunal also seriously erred in not taking into consideration the nature and duration of treatment and the nature of injuries, while awarding compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, she submits that the Tribunal also seriously erred in not taking into consideration the nature and duration of treatment and the nature of injuries, while awarding compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore, she submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent Corporation, inter alia, contended and submitted that, the impugned judgment and award is passed by the Tribunal, after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and age, avocation, nature of injuries, disability, etc. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both parties, and after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file coupled with the original records placed before me, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is, “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?” The undisputed facts of the case are that, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, including amputation of the right leg above knee. The Doctor has opined that the appellant is unable to carryout his work and discharge his duties and has to depend on others for his mobility throughout his life. He cannot sit, stand, walk and work like a normal person and has to use the artificial limbs throughout his life. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 15% to the left upper limb, 45% towards left lower limb. 100% towards right over limb and 60% in respect of whole body. The said assessment is on the lower side when compared to the nature of injuries sustained and the percentage of disability. Therefore, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, contents of the wound certificate, doctor’s evidence and disability. I re-assess the whole body disability at 75%, to meet the ends of justice. Further, it can be seen that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries as stated above and suffered disability of amputation of right leg above knee. During the period of treatment, he would have suffered unsaid pain and agony. The Tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect, the medical expenses and also the cost to be incurred towards purchase of artificial limbs and future medical expenses. During the period of treatment, he would have suffered unsaid pain and agony. The Tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect, the medical expenses and also the cost to be incurred towards purchase of artificial limbs and future medical expenses. However, the monthly income of `3,500/- assessed by Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. The appellant was aged about 55 years and therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is ‘11’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Accordingly, having regard to all the above aspects, I deem in fit to award a sum of `1,25,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against `1,00,000/-: `25,000/-towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against `15,000/-; `75,000/- towards loss of amenities as against `55,000/-; and `3,46,500/- (i.e. `3,500/- x 12 x ‘11’ x 75/100), towards loss of future income as against `2,77,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 9. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses. The appellant has become crippled and has to continuously use artificial limbs for his movements till his survival. During he is an aged person, he may find some difficulty and may have to incur some expenses towards medicines apart from incidental expenses. Therefore, I deem it fit to award a sum of `25,000/- towards future medical expenses. 10. However a sum of `1,87,000/- towards medical expenses and `21,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, awarded by Tribunal are just and proper and do not call for interference. 11. Thus, the appellant in all, would be entitled to a total compensation of `8,04,500/-with interest at 6% per annum as against `6,55,000/- awarded by Tribunal, and the break up is as follows: 12. 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 18th April 2007 passed in MVC No. 6370/2005, by the XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area. Bangalore (SCCH-17), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of `1,49,500/- with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The impugned judgment and award dated 18th April 2007 passed in MVC No. 6370/2005, by the XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area. Bangalore (SCCH-17), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of `1,49,500/- with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The respondent – Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. On such deposit by the Corporation, a sum of `1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant, in any Nationalized/ Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years, renewable for another three years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining `49,500/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. Office of draw award, accordingly.