Order N.K. Patil, J. Though these matters are posted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal. These appeals by the Insurer and by the claimant-injured are directed against the same judgment and award dated 13/04/2010 passed in MVC No.2017/2009, by the XVI Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH14), (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,46,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim made by the claimant for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are: The claimant-injured was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was an agriculturist and businessman by profession and getting the income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. That at about 9.30 p.m., on 12.12.2007 the claimant was going on his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA.42.E.3903 on left side on Ramanagar Magadi road between Kempegowdana Doddi Rayara Doddi, at that time, the driver of the Tata ACE (Luggage tempo) bearing No.KA.42.2601 came with high speed from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the claimant and caused the accident. As a result, claimant sustained severe injuries on his head, left femur and face as per Ex.P10. Immediately, he was shifted to Rotary hospital, Ramanagar and then he was shifted to Sagar hospital where he took treatment as inpatient, underwent ten surgeries, implants were inserted and thereafter, on the advice of the Doctor he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment. 4. It is the further case of the claimant that, he has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he has suffered 100% permanent disability. Therefore, claimant through his mother has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. Therefore, claimant through his mother has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 25,46,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurer has filed an appeal for reduction of compensation contending that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced and the claimant, through his mother has filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation contending that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and learned counsel appearing for the claimant in these appeals. 8. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Insurer that, 80% disability assessed by the Tribunal to the whole body is on the higher side and disproportionate to the injuries sustained by the claimant and therefore, a sum of Rs. 8,16,000/- awarded towards loss of future income is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by reducing the quantum of compensation. 9. As against this, it is the submission of the learned counsel for claimant Sri. Girimallaiah that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness and towards loss of future income and what is awarded is on the lower side. Further, he submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards future attendant charges. Further, he submitted that 80% disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the nature and duration of the treatment taken by him and now he is in a vegetable condition and he requires one attendant through out his future life. Further, he submitted that 80% disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the nature and duration of the treatment taken by him and now he is in a vegetable condition and he requires one attendant through out his future life. To substantiate the said submission, learned counsel appearing for claimant has submitted placing reliance on the evidence of PW3 Dr. Pratap Kumar Pani Neurosurgeon at Sagar Hospital that, PW3 has stated that, claimant was fully unconscious and not responding to pain and stated that recently he examined the claimant for assessment of disability and found that claimant has contractures and not able to speak, sit, stand, walk and still he use to pass urine through catheter and is suffering from 80% disability. He further submitted placing reliance on the evidence of PW4 Dr. Ananda that, claimant has facial deformity, difficulty in eating and inability to chew and he is chair bound and unable to talk and communication, walk left thigh quadriceps muscles wasting is noted, 30 degree fixed flexion deformity of the left knee, there is abnormal mobility, loss of function and decrease in mobility and disability of lower limb is permanent in nature and he is unable to eat food independently without anybody’s help, he cannot chew food on the left side, he has difficulty to drink water and deformity on the left side of the case and opined that he is suffering from 10% disability from facial injuries. Therefore, he submitted that, taking all these factors into consideration the permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal at 80% is on the lower side and is liable to be reassessed at 100%. He further submits that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- per month is on the lower side and is liable to be reassessed reasonably, as he was a very progressive agriculturist cum Sericulturist and also doing business. He further submits that, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future attendant charges having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 10. He further submits that, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future attendant charges having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 10. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and the learned counsel appearing for claimant and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the claimant as per Ex.P10 wound certificate are not in dispute. On account of the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, he has taken treatment as inpatient for more than one year in different hospitals, underwent ten surgeries, implants were inserted, during the said period, he might have underwent lot of pain and agony, might have spent considerable amount towards medical and other incidental expenses and sustained financial loss as he could not have attended his work regularly and he has to undergo multiple surgeries and facial deformities corrective surgeries, surgery for removal of implants and one more operation for cranoplasty and vigorous physiotherapy for longer duration. The Tribunal, taking all these factors into consideration has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment, Rs. 10,10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospectus and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. 11. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness, towards loss of future earnings due to disability and in not awarding any compensation towards future attendant charges. Admittedly, PW3 Dr. Pratap Kumar Pani, Neurosurgeon at Sagar Hospital after examining the claimant for assessing the disability has stated that, claimant has contractures and not able to speak, sit, stand, walk and still he use to pass urine through cathetor and assessed the disability at 80% and PW4 Dr. Ananda has stated that claimant has facial deformity, difficulty in eating and inability to chew, he is chair bound and unable to talk and communicate, walk, left thigh quadriceps muscles wasting is noted, 30 degrees fixed flexion deformity of the left knee and there is abnormal mobility. Ananda has stated that claimant has facial deformity, difficulty in eating and inability to chew, he is chair bound and unable to talk and communicate, walk, left thigh quadriceps muscles wasting is noted, 30 degrees fixed flexion deformity of the left knee and there is abnormal mobility. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs3 and 4 and having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and his present condition, we reassess the disability at 100% to the whole body instead of 80% as assessed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. The said disability is permanent in nature and he has to suffer this disability through out his life. The mental condition as well as physical frame of the claimant is completely destroyed and he requires one attendant to attend his day today activities. However, the Tribunal has justified in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- per month having regard to his age, occupation and the year of accident. The proper Multiplier applicable would be ‘17’ since the claimant was aged about 26 years, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 as rightly adopted by the Tribunal and we accept the same. Further, it could be seen that, on account of permanent disability, claimant has to depend upon an attendant to do his day today activities in future. But all these aspects of the matters have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation under these heads. Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration and in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgment, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,20,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- x 12 x 17 x 100%) towards loss of future income instead of Rs. 8,16,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- towards future attendant charges. 12. So far as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for claimant that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,20,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- x 12 x 17 x 100%) towards loss of future income instead of Rs. 8,16,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- towards future attendant charges. 12. So far as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for claimant that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- per month is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced is concerned, the said submission cannot be accepted and is liable to be rejected, for the reason that, except making oral submission, claimant has not produced any credible documents to show as to how much income he was getting from his profession as an agriculturist and businessman and therefore, the Tribunal taking into consideration his age, avocation and the year of accident, has justified in assessing his income at Rs. 5,000/- per month and interference by this Court is uncalled for. Hence, the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for claimant is rejected. In all, the claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 30,50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,46,000/- and the break up is as under: Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/- Towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,10,000/- Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 1,10,000/- Towards loss of income during the treatment period of the claimant Rs. 60,000/- Towards loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,50,000/- Towards future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- Towards loss of future income Rs. 10,20,000/- Towards loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/- Towards future attendant charges Rs. 2,50,000/- Total Rs. 30,50,000/- 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurer is dismissed as devoid of merits and the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 13/04/2010 passed in MVC No.2017/2009, by the XVI Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH14), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of Rs. 30,50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,46,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 5,04,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,04,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award. Immediately on deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,04,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award. Immediately on deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,04,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of the claimant, in any Nationalized or Scheduled bank, for a period of ten years and renewable by another ten years, with liberty to the natural guardian, mother of the claimant to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. The remaining sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claimant through his natural guardian, mother. The amount deposited by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately, if not already transferred. Draw the award, accordingly.