Judgment Aruna Jagadeesan, J. 1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai in MACT.O.P.No.824 of 2003 dated, 20.01.2011, the injured claimant has filed this appeal. 2. The claimant sustained the following injuries. i) Left temporal subjural haemorrhage ii) Left temporal with a serebral haemorrhage with burnt temporal lobe. iii) Diffuse Sub-arachnoid haemorrhage iv) Left temporal parital region and right temporal fissured fracture. 3. P.W.5, Neuro surgeon had examined the appellant and determined his disability at 80%. The claimant was working as a wireman in the Tamilnadu Electricity Board and was earning a sum of Rs.7,821/- at the time of accident. P.W.2, the Assistant Engineer, working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had deposed that the appellant would have been promoted as a Line Inspector as he was in the panel for promotion and had he been promoted as a Line Inspector, he would have got a monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-. 4. The Tribunal, without assessing the functional disability of the injured granted compensation at Rs.2,000/- per percentage and awarded Rs.1,60,000/-, apart from other conventional damages. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as follows: Sl. No. Category Award Amount (Rs.) 1 Medical Expenses Rs. 10,350/- 2 Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- 3 Pain & Suffering Rs. 50,000/- 4 Permanent Disability Rs. 1,60,000/- 5 Transportation charges Rs.16,400/- 6 Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.2,51,750/- 5. According to the learned counsel for the claimant/ appellant, the Tribunal has committed an error in not assessing the functional disability on account of permanent disability incurred by the claimant at 80% and granted compensation at Rs.2,000/-per percentage which is on the lower side and grossly inadequate. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent Transport Corporation, justifying the award passed by the Tribunal, had contended that it does not call for any enhancement. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents produced by the claimant/appellant. 8. In this appeal, after seeking permission from this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2014 dated 20.06.2014, an additional document has been marked, which is the proceedings of the Superintendent Engineer, Villupuram, whereunder, the claimant/G. Balaraman, wireman is deem to have been invalidated from Board's service on medical grounds w.e.f. 17.05.2011. 9. 8. In this appeal, after seeking permission from this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2014 dated 20.06.2014, an additional document has been marked, which is the proceedings of the Superintendent Engineer, Villupuram, whereunder, the claimant/G. Balaraman, wireman is deem to have been invalidated from Board's service on medical grounds w.e.f. 17.05.2011. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the claimant was drawing the salary till he was terminated from service i.e., 17.05.2011, which is also not disputed by the claimant. 10. The evidence placed on record shows that he has suffered functional disability to the extent of 80%. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to that, we have no reasons to come to a different conclusion with regard to percentage of functional disability of the claimant at 80%. We find that the opinion expressed by the doctor is worthy of acceptance and it cannot be rejected. Having regard to the fact that the claimant/appellant, who had worked as wireman, could not pursue his avocation with the said disability, the Tribunal, ought to have computed the loss of future earning by assessing the functional disability at 80%. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account that the claimant would attain superannuation in 2019, Rs.8,000/-can be taken as the monthly income and adding Rs.4,000/- towards future prospects, the total income comes to Rs.12,000/-. From the said income, by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, for computing the loss of income, it would be appropriate to take the monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. Considering the appellant was a wireman and had 7 years of service, by applying the principle laid down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), the proper multiplier would be 7. Therefore, Rs.6,72,000 (8000x12x7) is arrived at as loss of future earnings. 12. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the duration of treatment, we find that the compensation of Rs.50,000/-towards pain and suffering awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, we deem it fit to enhance it to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. In addition to this, we award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for transportation, which includes Rs.16,400/- as per Ex.P5 bill and a sum Rs.25,000/-is awarded for extra nourishment. No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal for loss of amenities and attendant charges. Therefore, we deem it fit to enhance it to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. In addition to this, we award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for transportation, which includes Rs.16,400/- as per Ex.P5 bill and a sum Rs.25,000/-is awarded for extra nourishment. No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal for loss of amenities and attendant charges. We deem it fit to award Rs.25,000/-each under the said heads. The compensation awarded for medical expenses by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.10,350/-, is maintained. Thus, the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.2,51,750/-, is enhanced to Rs.9,82,350/-as under: Sl. No. Category Award Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of future earning Rs. 6,72,000/- 2 Medical Expenses Rs. 10,350/- 3 Attendant charges Rs. 25,000/- 4 Pain & Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- 5 Transportation Rs. 25,000/- 6 Extra Nourishment Rs. 25,000/- 7 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 9,82,350/- 13. In the result, The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai, in MACT.O.P.No. 824 of 2003 dated 20.01.2011, is hereby modified by awarding a sum of Rs.9,82,350/- as against Rs.2,51,750/-with interest at 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced sum from the date of petition till the date of realistation. The Respondent-Corporation has to deposit the enhanced compensation, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with accrued interest before the Tribunal to the credit of MACT.O.P.No. 824 of 2003 on the file of Additional Sub Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount lying to the credit of MACT.O.P.No.824 of 2003 along with accrued interest, on his filing appropriate Application before the Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this Appeal.