JUDGMENT : N.K. PATIL, J. 1. This is a claimant's appeal directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16-6-2011 passed in MVC No. 8810 of 2009 on the file of the Principal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for brevity). The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,06,570/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation as against the claim for Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant felt necessary to present this appeal. The brief facts of the case are: The appellant claims that he was aged about 24 years, working as Fitter and earning income of Rs. 7,000/- p.m. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. When things thus stood, that on 21-8-2009 at about 4.15 p.m., when the appellant was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-51/R-4642 along with his friend as a pillion from Yelahanka towards Maruthinagar in order to go to the house of his relatives, when they reached Kogilu Cross Junction on B.B. Road at Yelahanka, a Maruthi Alto LXI Car bearing Registration No. KA 04 MG 2878, came from southern direction in order to go to northern direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained head injuries apart from other fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to Colombia-Asia Hospital, where he was given first aid treatment and thereafter, shifted to NIMHANS. He was treated as an inpatient from 21-8-2009 to 28-8-2009, on account of the accidental injuries. Due to the injuries suffered by him, his memory is lost and is mentally disordered. He has suffered 100% disability since the memory of the appellant is completely lost. He has also undergone one surgery and admitted in the hospital for a period of 15 days. He therefore, has filed the petition through his mother and the next friend. It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and medical expenses. 2. He has also undergone one surgery and admitted in the hospital for a period of 15 days. He therefore, has filed the petition through his mother and the next friend. It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and medical expenses. 2. On account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the appellant was constrained to file a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- against the respondents. The Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on the file allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs. 5,06,570/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented the instant appeal seeking enhancement contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error, resulting in miscarriage of justice without considering the oral and documentary evidence and the nature of injuries sustained. He quickly pointed out that the Neuro Psychologist consolation was done on 10-12-2010 and found that the appellant is having profound impairment in social functioning and is suffering 100% cognitive disability and the doctor stated that the appellant has got 100% functional disability. He has no physical disability but only mental disability. He further contended that the appellant has undergone one surgery and has taken treatment for about 15 days as inpatient in the hospital. The appellant was an ITI graduate, working as Fitter and earning Rs. 7,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has also assessed the whole body disability at 50% which is incorrect for the reason that the appellant has lost the memory completely and the disability should be taken at 100%. The Tribunal has not taken into account the avocation and the age of the injured and has awarded meager compensation towards pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness, loss of income during treatment period, loss of future income and loss of marriage prospects and therefore, seeks enhancement of compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award. 4. The Tribunal has not taken into account the avocation and the age of the injured and has awarded meager compensation towards pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness, loss of income during treatment period, loss of future income and loss of marriage prospects and therefore, seeks enhancement of compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award. 4. As against this, learned Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company inter alia contended that the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is passed after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and interference by this Court is not called for. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company for considerable length of time. 6. After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the point that arise for our consideration is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 7. The occurrence of the accident and the result injuries is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 24 years and Fitter by profession and it is stated that he was getting income of more than Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant is not in a position to continue his profession as he was performing prior to the accident. Further it is not in dispute that the appellant was admitted in the hospital for more than 15 days and has also undergone one surgery. On the advice of the doctor he has taken follow up treatment and bed rest for considerable period. The whole body disability assessed by Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 2,000/- p.m., which is on lower side as the accident is of the year 2009. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, we safely reassess the income at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. to meet the ends of justice. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18'. Accordingly, we award Rs. 6,48,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- p.m. to meet the ends of justice. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18'. Accordingly, we award Rs. 6,48,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 12 x 18 x 50/100) as against Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of future income. 8. Further, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 40,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 11,000/- towards conveyance, attendance and nourishing food which is on the lower side. Therefore, we deem it proper to award just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards the said heads. 9. However, Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 7,570/- towards medical expenses and therefore, interference is uncalled for. 10. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of marriage prospects. The appellant was aged 24 years and a bachelor. Due to the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident, he has lost his future career and this definitely affects his future marriage prospects. We therefore award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the said head to meet the ends of justice. 11. Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding very less compensation of Rs. 16,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. As the claimant was admitted for more than 15 days in the hospital and has underwent one surgery, taking these relevant aspects into consideration, we deem it fit to award Rs. 18,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 3 months) towards loss of income during laid up period. 12. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. From the records it is seen that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and the disability as assessed by the doctor is at 100% to the whole body. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the nature and duration of the treatment undergone and pain and agony suffered by him. Therefore, we deem it fit to award Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. Therefore, we deem it fit to award Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 16-6-2011 passed in MVC No. 8810 of 2009 on the file of the Principal, MACT and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 9,63,570/- as against Rs. 5,60,570/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 4,57,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The respondent 2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,57,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the appellant, in any Nationalised Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of ten years and renewal for another 10 years with permission to mother, being natural guardian to withdraw interest periodically for the welfare of the appellant. Remaining Rs. 1,57,000/- with accrued interest shall be released in favour of the appellant's mother as she is the natural guardian for welfare of the appellant, immediately on deposit by the second respondent-Insurance Company. Office to draw the award, accordingly.