JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. This appeal by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 21-3-2014, passed in MVC No. 1407 of 2012, by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holenarasipur (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal' for short), on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 4,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding future medical expenses), as against the claim of Rs. 30,00,000/-, 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 21 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident, studying Diploma in Bahubali Polytechnic College at Shravanabelagola, doing agriculture and milk vending business and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. That on 23-5-2012 at about 8.30 p.m. when the appellant was proceeding in a bullock cart towards Madagowdanakoppalu and when he came near Gannikada Bridge, Channarayapatna, at that time, the driver of the car bearing Reg. No. KA.34.M.6091 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit to his bullock cart, due to which, one bullock died at the spot and appellant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula and also sustained injuries on forehead, right leg and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Channarayapatna through auto. After first aid, he was taken to Mangala Hospital, where he took treatment as inpatient for 12 days, underwent surgery, implants were inserted 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 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 Doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 15%. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation against the respondents. 4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 15%. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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. 4,16,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit excluding future medical expenses of Rs. 50,000/-. 5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellant and learned Counsel appearing for second respondent-Insurer. 7. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the appellant reasonably and what is assessed is on the lower side and is liable to be reassessed reasonably, on the ground that, appellant was aged about 21 years, doing agriculture and milk vending business and the accident is of the year 2012. Further, he submits that on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident as per Ex. P. 3-Wound Certificate, he took treatment as inpatient for 12 days and underwent surgery, implants were inserted and he examined the Doctor as P.W. 2, who has assessed the disability at 39%, but the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 15% contrary to the evidence of the Doctor and therefore, he submitted that the percentage of disability assessed by the Doctor may be accepted. Further, he has submitted that appellant 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 three months, discomforts and unhappiness persists throughout his life and it would affect his earning capacity as 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 while awarding compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of income, loss of future earning and has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period. Further, he has submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a., is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced since the accident is of the year 2012. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for insurer, inter alia, contended and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference. 9. After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for both the parties 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. P. 3-wound certificate are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, appellant was aged about 21 years, doing agriculture and milk vending business. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the relevant material available on file, has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- towards medical expenses as per medical bills, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects and Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical expenses and therefore, it does not call for interference. 11. However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, towards loss of future income and in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period and therefore, it has to be enhanced and awarded reasonably. Admittedly, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 12 days, underwent surgery, implants were inserted and during the said period, he might have undergone lot of pain and sufferings, he might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Admittedly, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 12 days, underwent surgery, implants were inserted and during the said period, he might have undergone lot of pain and sufferings, he might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. We presume that, on the advice of the Doctor, he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment at least for three months, during the said period, he might have incurred financial loss as he could not have attended his work regularly. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 15% to the whole body and we accept the same. Due to the permanent disability, appellant is not in a position to do his work as he was doing earlier. Discomforts and unhappiness persists throughout his life and it would affect his happiness in future life and also affects his earning capacity. 12. 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 and it needs to be enhanced reasonably. Having regard to the age, occupation of the appellant and the year of accident, we reassess his income at Rs. 6,500/- per month to meet the ends of justice. The appropriate multiplier applicable would be 18' since appellant was aged about 21 years as on the date of the accident. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings against Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 12,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges instead ofL 10,000/-, Rs. 19,500/-towards loss of income during the period of treatment for three months at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per month and Rs. 2,10,600/- (Rs. 6,500 x 12 x 18 x 15%) towards loss of future earnings instead of Rs. 1,45,000/-. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 5,13,100/- instead of Rs. 4,16,000/- and the break up is as follows: Towards injury, pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,46,000/- Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 12,000/- Towards loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 19,500/- Towards loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- Towards loss of future earnings Rs. 2,10,600/- Towards loss of marriage prospects Rs. 20,000/- Towards future medical expense Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 5,13,100/- 13. 35,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,46,000/- Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 12,000/- Towards loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 19,500/- Towards loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- Towards loss of future earnings Rs. 2,10,600/- Towards loss of marriage prospects Rs. 20,000/- Towards future medical expense Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 5,13,100/- 13. Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2012. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal. 14. 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 21-3-2014, passed in MVC No. 1407 of 2012, by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holenarasipur, stands modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 5,13,100/- instead of Rs. 4,16,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 97,100/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 97,100/- 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 and award. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, the enhanced compensation with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. Draw the award, accordingly.