JUDGMENT : This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 22-7-2014 passed in MVC No. 1979 of 2013 on the file of the XXI A.C.M.M. and XXIII A.S.C.J., Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-25) (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation. 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,03,618/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim made by the appellant, on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 3. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. The brief facts of the case in hands are: The appellant was aged about 40 years, working as a Field Worker in BMRCL, hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 15-1-2013 at about 7.30 a.m. when he was standing near the Metro shed of Thalaghattapura on Kanakapura Road, the driver of a bus bearing Reg. No. KA-04-A-3571, which was boarded with Metro workers near their shed and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed against the appellant. Due to the impact, he fell down and the bus ran over on both his legs thereby sustained traumatic multiple compound fractures of right leg of 111 B Type coupled with lacerations associated with neuro-vascular injury of right lower limb, both bones fractures of left leg with loss of skin and muscle, concussive head injury, multiple abrasions and contusions on both legs, arms and face followed by amputation right leg above knee. On account of which he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, where he undergone treatment for two days and then shifted to Suguna Hospital, Rajajinagar, where he was inpatient from 17-1-2013 to 16-2-2013. 5. It is the case of the appellant that he was aged about 40 years earning more than Rs. 8,000/- p.m. by working as a field worker. On account of grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he suffered injury, pain and mental agony during the treatment period and the doctor after clinical and radiological examination assessed the permanent disability to an extent of 85%. 8,000/- p.m. by working as a field worker. On account of grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he suffered injury, pain and mental agony during the treatment period and the doctor after clinical and radiological examination assessed the permanent disability to an extent of 85%. He has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. He also suffered discomfort and unhappiness in his life because of the injuries sustained on account of road traffic accident and he is not in a position to work as a Field Worker in BMRCL due to the amputation of right leg above knee. He has to spend reasonable amount towards purchase of artificial limb and undergo surgery for removal of implants. Taking all these aspects into consideration, he had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part by awarding a sum of Rs. 8,03,618/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Being dissatisfied 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 appellants in the memorandum of appeal. 7. It is contended that the appellant was earning more than Rs. 8,000/- per month by working as a Field Worker in BMRCL. The Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month. The same is liable to be reassessed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards 'pain and suffering', Toss of income during laid up period', Toss of amenities' discomfort and unhappiness and disability' is on the lower side. Therefore, it is the case of the appellants that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation. 8. 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. 9. 8. 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. 9. After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for consideration is: "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 40 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal after considering the oral evidence of P.W. 2 has assessed the age of the appellant as 45 years and we accept the same. It further emerges from the file that he was earning more than Rs. 8,000/- per month by working as a Field Worker in BMRCL. On account of grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he has undergone treatment for a period of one month in different hospitals and also underwent surgery. To substantiate the same, he examined the doctor as P.W. 2 who in turn after clinical and radiological examination assessed the permanent disability to an extent of 85% to the whole body. We accept the same. As per the evidence of the Doctor-P.W. 2, on account of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant he is not in a position to work as a Field Worker. He might have spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and suffered mental pain and agony during the treatment period. He also suffered discomfort and unhappiness because of the grievous injuries sustained on account of road traffic accident. He may require reasonable amount towards future medical expenses for purchase of artificial limb and for removal of implants. Taking all these relevant aspects consideration, he has to be compensated by awarding reasonable compensation. 10. Having regard to the fact that the appellant was working as a Field Worker in BMRCL, we can safely reassess the income of the appellant at Rs. 8,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice. Taking all these relevant aspects consideration, he has to be compensated by awarding reasonable compensation. 10. Having regard to the fact that the appellant was working as a Field Worker in BMRCL, we can safely reassess the income of the appellant at Rs. 8,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and disability caused, we can safely assess the permanent disability at 85% to the whole body. Multiplier applicable to his age is 14. Therefore, the Toss of future income' comes to Rs. 11,42,400/- ( Rs. 8,000 x 12 x 14 x 85/100) as against Rs. 7,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded towards 'pain and suffering' is on the lower side, the same is enhanced to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- is awarded towards 'Medical Expenses' as against Rs. 39,618/- and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards 'Future medical expenses for purchase of artificial limb including incidental expenses' as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'Loss of amenities'. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards Toss of amenities'. 11. In all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 15,52,400/- as against Rs. 8,03,618/- and the break-up is as follows: Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 1,50,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 60,000/- Towards loss of amentities Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards loss of future income Rs. 11,42,400/- Towards future medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 15,52,400/- 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it fit to award 9% interest on enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realisation. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 22-7-2014 passed in MVC No. 1979 of 2013 on the file of the XXI A.C.M.M. and XXIII A.S.C.J., Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-25), is hereby modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs. 7,48,782/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 7,48,782/- 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. 7,48,782/- 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. 6,00,000/- 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 ten years and renewable for five years, with liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,48,782/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately, on deposit by the insurer. Draw the award, accordingly.