JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 5-9-2012 passed in MVC No. 2837 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-13), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,98,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, as against the claim made by the appellant, on account of the grievous injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident. 2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The brief facts of the case in hands are: "It is case of the appellant that, she was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was running Opriware Optics Shop, earning Rs. 60,000/- per month. On 21-2-2011 at about 8.30 p.m., when she was traveling on Bajaj Kristal bearing Registration No. KA-02-HD-1431 on Kalyananagara Road near Bande Maramma Temple, Chandra Layout, Bangalore, at that time the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-05-D-9305 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her vehicle. Due to the impact, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Gurushree Hi-tech Hospital, Vijayanagar, Bangalore. She undergone treatment for a period of more than 12 days in the hospital as an in-patient and on account of the road traffic accident, she sustained open book fracture of pelvis and also undergone one operation. It is further case of the appellant that she was pregnant of six weeks at the time of accident and spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and suffered discomfort and unhappiness in her life and also the disability she sustained is permanent in nature. She is not in a position to conceive in future. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the appellant has filed a claim petition against the respondents under Section 166 of M.V. Act for compensation before the Tribunal. The said claim petition filed by the appellant had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. She is not in a position to conceive in future. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the appellant has filed a claim petition against the respondents under Section 166 of M.V. Act for compensation before the Tribunal. The said claim petition filed by the appellant had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant documents available on record, taking into consideration the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained and duration of treatment undergone, has allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,98,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of mobilisation." 4. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards pain and suffering, conveyance, nourishment food and attendant charges, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of permanent disability. What has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It requires reconsideration by enhancing compensation. 6. It is the specific case of the appellant that she was aged about 26 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and was running Optiware Optics Shop and earning regular income of Rs. 60,000/- per month. On account of the road traffic accident, she sustained injuries which are grievous in nature. She undergone treatment for a period of more than 12 days in the hospital as an in-patient, she sustained open book fracture of pelvis and also undergone one operation. It is further case of the appellant that she was pregnant of six weeks at the time of accident. She has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and suffered discomfort and unhappiness in her life and also disability she sustained is permanent in nature. She would not be in a position to conceive in her future life. To substantiate the same, she has examined herself as PW-1 and the doctor as P.W. 2. After clinical and radiological examination, the doctor has assessed the disability of 55% to the pelvic region, and 1/3rd of it, comes to 18% towards the whole body. This aspect has not been looked into or considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. To substantiate the same, she has examined herself as PW-1 and the doctor as P.W. 2. After clinical and radiological examination, the doctor has assessed the disability of 55% to the pelvic region, and 1/3rd of it, comes to 18% towards the whole body. This aspect has not been looked into or considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Therefore he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation. 7. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the insurer inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is passed after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for. 8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurer and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 9. After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 10. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 21-2-2011 and was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and also hale and healthy prior to the accident. She is a bright and committed woman, running Optiware Optics Shop and earning regular income of Rs. 60,000/- per month from the business. Unfortunately on 21-2-2011, she met with an accident and sustained open book fracture of pelvis, on account of which she undergone treatment for a period of more than 12 days in the hospital as an inpatient and undergone one operation. It is further case of the appellant that she was pregnant of six weeks at the time of accident. She is not in a position to conceive again in her future life also. She has stated that she is completely bedridden, unable to sit, stand or walk and facing lot of problems to discharge her day-to-day activities. She underwent deep shock and mental agony. She examined Dr. Hanumegowda as P.W. 2. She is not in a position to conceive again in her future life also. She has stated that she is completely bedridden, unable to sit, stand or walk and facing lot of problems to discharge her day-to-day activities. She underwent deep shock and mental agony. She examined Dr. Hanumegowda as P.W. 2. After clinical and radiological examination conducted on 13-1-2012, he has stated that the appellant has suffered disability to an extent of 55% to the pelvic region, and if 1/3rd is taken, it comes to 18% towards whole body disability. She has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and suffered discomfort and unhappiness in her life and also disability she sustained is permanent in nature. After careful perusal of I.T. returns for the years 2007-2008 to 2010-2011, we deem fit to take her monthly income at Rs. 15,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. 11. Taking all these relevant aspects, we deem fit to award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' as against Rs. 60,000/-, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards 'conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges' as against Rs. 15,000/-, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- (Rs. 15,000 x 3 months) towards 'loss of income during treatment period' and a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards 'loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness in life' as against Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,48,000/- towards 'medical expenses' as per medical bills produced. The same is just and proper and does not call for interference. 12. In all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 5,13,000/- as against Rs. 2,98,000/- and the break-up is as follows: Enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 2,15,000/-. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced, having regard to the fact that the year of the accident is 2011. 14. There is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. We deem fit to award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till mobilization. 14. There is substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. We deem fit to award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till mobilization. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case referred above, the impugned judgment and award dated 5-9-2012 passed in MVC No. 2837 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), is hereby modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The 2nd respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised or Scheduled Grameena Bank, in the name of the appellant for a period of five years and renewable for five years, with liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately, on deposit by the insurer. Draw the award, accordingly. In view of the disposal of the main appeal I.A. No. 1 of 2015 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of as having become infructuous.