JUDGMENT : N.K. PATIL, J. 1. This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 02/09/2011, passed in MVC No. 221/2009, by the X Additional Judge and Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-16), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 8,22,600/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 8% p.a., on Rs. 8,12,600/- from the date of petition till the date of realization as against the claim of Rs. 35,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident is inadequate. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are: "The appellant claims to be aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Sales Manager in Anu Credit Service and drawing the salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. That on 16.7.2008 at about 7.15 a.m. appellant was traveling as a pillion rider in bike bearing Reg. No. KA.04.EX.8062 towards Gowribidanur from Bangalore and when they came near Hindupur road, Suradevanapura gate near Cold Store, at that time, the driver of the canter bearing Reg. No. CAW 1688 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bike from behind and caused the accident. Due to which, appellant sustained grievous injuries on the back spine part, both legs, hand and other vital parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, where he took treatment as inpatient for 9 days, underwent surgery, implants were fixed and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment." 3. It is the further case of the appellant that, he has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. The PW4-Doctor has assessed the physical disability at 65%. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents. 4. 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. 4. 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. 8,22,600/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., Rs. 8,12,600/- from the date of petition till the date of realization. 5. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. We have gone through the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for Insurer. 7. It is the case of the appellant that, the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs. 4,500/- per month contrary to the documentary evidence produced by him as per Ex. P7-service certificate, Ex. P8-salary certificate and the affidavit filed by the employer and therefore, his income may be reassessed reasonably as he was working as Sales Manager in Anu Credit Finance and drawing the salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month as per Ex. P8. It is the further case of the appellant that, on account of post traumatic paraparesis secondary to L1 wedge, fracture with retropulsed fragment sustained by him in the accident, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 9 days in Hosmat Hospital, underwent surgery and implants were inserted and due to the said fracture, he cannot pass urine normally and he has to cathotarise himself and requires support of crutches or walker for mobility. PW4-Doctor, after clinical examination has assessed the physical disability at 65%. It is the further case of the appellant that, he has spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges and on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment for more than six months, discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his earning capacity and now he is not in a position to do his work as he was doing earlier and he requires some amount towards future medical expenses. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal or awarded reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness, loss of future income, towards future medical expenses including incidental expenses and towards loss of income during the period of treatment. Therefore, he has prayed that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for insurer, inter alia, sought to substantiate that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, after going through the evidence of the Doctor, the nature of injuries sustained, percentage of disability suffered by the appellant and after going through the evidence of Exs. P7 and P8, the statement made by the employer which is not support by any documents, has justified in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 4,500/- per month and therefore, it does not call for interference. 9. After careful consideration of the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal, after consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and after perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 10. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant as per Ex. P2-wound certificate, viz., post traumatic paraparesis secondary to LV wedge, fracture with retropulsed fragment are not in dispute. On account of which, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 9 days in Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, underwent surgery, implants were inserted. On account of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability at 65%. P2-wound certificate, viz., post traumatic paraparesis secondary to LV wedge, fracture with retropulsed fragment are not in dispute. On account of which, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 9 days in Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, underwent surgery, implants were inserted. On account of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability at 65%. To prove the same, he has examined the Doctor as PW4, who has deposed that, appellant complaints of para paresis in both lower limbs with difficulty to walk independently, he requires support of crutches or a walker for mobility, he cannot pass urine normally and has to catherize himself which may vary from four to five times, he has to wear support for both the feet during standing and walking The Doctor has further deposed that appellant cannot shake or move legs continuously due to the accident and the connected nerves from legs to spinal cord have also become very weak and due to which he lost entire support/stability of the body and therefore opined that he is suffering from spinal chord and severe nerves problem which cannot be cured in future and has resulted in permanent disability and assessed the disability at 65% to the whole body and we accept the same. The disability is permanent in nature. Discomforts and unhappiness persists through out his life and it would affect his happiness in future life and also affects his earning capacity. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 4,500/- per month which is on the lower side. Having regard to the age, occupation, year of the accident and in view of Exs. P7 and P8, we re-assess his income at Rs. 8,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice. The proper multiplier applicable is 17' since appellant was aged about 30 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. 11. Further, it emerges that, during the course of treatment appellant might have undergone pain and agony. We presume that, he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment atleast for six months, during the said period, might have sustained financial loss, as he could not have attended his work regularly and he has to undergo one more operation and he also requires future treatment having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, including medical expenses and other incidental expenses. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering instead of Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 48,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for six months at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month instead of Rs. 13,500/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness instead of Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 10,60,800/- (Rs. 8,000 x 12 x 17 x 65%) towards loss of future earnings instead of Rs. 5,96,700/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses instead of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. However, the Tribunal has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and after due appreciation of the medical bills produced by the appellant and therefore, it does not call for interference. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 15,95,800/- instead of Rs. 8,22,600/- and the break- up is as follows: Toward pain and suffering Rs.1,50,00/- Toward medical expenses Rs.1,27,000/- Toward conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs.10,000/- Toward loss of income during the period of treatment Rs.48,000/- Toward loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Toward loss of future earning Rs.10,60,800/- Toward future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.15,95,800/- 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 02/09/2011, passed in MVC No. 221/2009, by the X Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-16), stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 15,95,800/- instead of Rs. 8,22,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 7,73,200/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. The third respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,73,200/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,73,200/-, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the name of the appellant for a period of 10 years and renewable by another 05 years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. 7,73,200/-, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the name of the appellant for a period of 10 years and renewable by another 05 years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. The remaining sum of Rs. 1,73,200/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. Draw the award, accordingly.