Judgment R. DASH, J. This appeal is against the award dated 7.5.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in MACT Case No.42/347 of 2006 awarding compensation of Rs.5,92,800/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the application. 2. The petitioner-claimant No.1-Duryodhan Sahoo is the appellant in this appeal. He is none other than the injured. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the insured owner of the vehicle and the insurer Insurance Company, respectively. 3. The appellant seeks for enhancement of the award amount taking the following grounds: (1) Learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the claimant’s evidence on his monthly income and instead of assessing loss of income at 70%, solely on the basis of disability certificate, learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the functional disability of the appellant at 100%. (2) The award made by the learned Tribunal under each of the headings ‘medical expenses’, ‘attendant cost’, ‘pain and sufferings’ and ‘inconvenience and discomfort’ is very low. (3) The proper multiplier should have been 16 instead of 15. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued in support of the award claiming that the same is just and appropriate. He has further argued that learned Tribunal should have determined the income of the injured at Rs.35,000/- per annum on the basis of the evidence adduced by none other than the injured claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand argues that the appellant’s evidence that his income is Rs.4,500/- per month, which could not be demolished by the respondents, should not have been discarded by the learned Tribunal. 6. On the income of the appellant, learned Tribunal has stated in the award that in his claim application his monthly income from agriculture and vegetable business was Rs.4,500/- and while adducing evidence he has claimed his monthly income to be between Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. It is also found from the award that the claimant exhibited one Income Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala showing his annual income at Rs.35,000/-. Learned Tribunal accepted the Income Certificate as a piece of evidence on the appellant’s income from agriculture. Furthermore, considering the appellant’s stand that he is having business in vegetable, assessed his income from the business at Rs.700/- per month and assessed the total monthly income at Rs.3,700/-. Learned Tribunal accepted the Income Certificate as a piece of evidence on the appellant’s income from agriculture. Furthermore, considering the appellant’s stand that he is having business in vegetable, assessed his income from the business at Rs.700/- per month and assessed the total monthly income at Rs.3,700/-. Since the Tribunal has recorded such a finding basing on the evidence on record, this Court does not find such finding to be erroneous. 7. As regards loss of earning capacity, it is undisputed that on account of the accident his right leg was to be amputed from the thigh and all the toes of the left leg were also amputed. One disability certificate (Ext.9) issued by the District Medical Board, Jajpur reflects that the appellant suffered 70% disability on account of amputation of his right leg and of all the toes of the left leg. Accepting the disability certificate, learned Tribunal has held that the appellant’s loss of income is to the extent of 70%. With the amputation of his right leg as well as all the toes of the left leg, he cannot do any manual work. 8. In Syed Sadiq V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 735, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, one of the claimant was a vegetable vendor. He had sustained injuries to lower end of right femur and left upper arm and his right leg and left upper arm had to be amputed. Considering the nature of his occupation and the extent of injury he had sustained, their Lordships observed as follows: “Further, the appellant claims that he was working as a vegetable vendor. It is true that a vegetable vendor might not require mobility to the extent that he sells vegetables at one place. However, the occupation of vegetable vending is not confined to selling vegetables from a particular location. It rather involves procuring vegetables from the wholesale market or the farmers and then selling it off in the retail market. This often involves selling vegetables in the cart which requires 100% mobility. But even by conservative approach, if we presume that the vegetable vending by the appellant claimant involved selling vegetables from one place, the claimant would require assistance with his mobility in bringing vegetables to the marketplace which otherwise would be extremely difficult for him with an amputated leg. This often involves selling vegetables in the cart which requires 100% mobility. But even by conservative approach, if we presume that the vegetable vending by the appellant claimant involved selling vegetables from one place, the claimant would require assistance with his mobility in bringing vegetables to the marketplace which otherwise would be extremely difficult for him with an amputated leg. We are required to be sensitive while dealing with manual labour cases where loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood. Yet, considering that the appellant claimant is still capable to fend for his livelihood once he is brought in the marketplace, we determine the disability at 85% to determine the loss of income” (Emphasis supplied). In the present case, it is not shown as to whether the appellant was himself doing all the manual work in the field to raise crop. But it is quite possible that with this disability the present appellant is capable of doing the business of supplying vegetables to the market. With the use of artificial limb he can enhance his mobility for the purpose of enabling himself to continue his business. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant has suffered loss of income to the extent of 70%. 9. The Tribunal holds that the appellant was within the age group of 36 to 40, and accordingly, adopted the multiplier of 15 to work out the total loss of income. This is in accordance with the judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another; AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Appellant’s contention that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate is not sustainable. 10. So far the award of compensation under other heads are concerned, the submission made on behalf of the appellant seems to be reasonable. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.71,200/- towards ‘medical expenses’ on the basis of medical bills exhibited by the appellant. But it is quite natural that medical bills do not cover all the expenses incurred for undergoing treatment as an indoor patient. Admittedly, the appellant was admitted in a Government hospital for a period of 54 days. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.71,200/- towards ‘medical expenses’ on the basis of medical bills exhibited by the appellant. But it is quite natural that medical bills do not cover all the expenses incurred for undergoing treatment as an indoor patient. Admittedly, the appellant was admitted in a Government hospital for a period of 54 days. The appellant claims that a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of special diet, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of transportation and cost incurred for at least three attendants for a period of 54 days of the admission period should have been awarded by the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has awarded attendant cost for one attendant at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. In my opinion, the attendant cost should have been awarded for two attendants for a period of three months. Because, even after his discharge the appellant must have been attended to by at least two persons for a period of about one month to make him fit for managing his own affairs independently. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.18,000/- towards attendant cost. The claim towards cost of special diet and of transportation does not appear to be on the higher side. Therefore, that claim should be accepted and the appellant should be held entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards cost of special diet and of transportation. The appellant claims a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of future treatment. But no material has been placed before the learned Tribunal that he needs further treatment. However, he must get compensation for use of artificial limb. For that purpose he must get compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. A sum of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded under the head “pain and suffering” and Rs.20,000/- under the head “inconvenience and discomfort”. Instead, the appellant claims a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.1,00,000/- towards future prospect. The compensation awarded on these counts seems to be very low. It would be just compensation if the appellant gets Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities as claimed by him. 11. Thus, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the following heads: Loss of income Rs.4,66,200/- Towards medical and incidental costs Rs.1,29,200/- Towards cost of artificial limb Rs.50,000/- Towards loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Towards pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Total : Rs.7,45,400/- 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. 11. Thus, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the following heads: Loss of income Rs.4,66,200/- Towards medical and incidental costs Rs.1,29,200/- Towards cost of artificial limb Rs.50,000/- Towards loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Towards pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Total : Rs.7,45,400/- 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal stands enhanced from Rs.5,92,800/- to Rs.7,45,400/- (Rupees seven lakh forty-five thousand four hundred). Rest parts of the award stand confirmed.