JUDGMENT : N.K. PATIL, J. 1. This appeal by the injured claimant is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 11th January 2012, passed in MVC No. 1135/2011, by the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-15), (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,65,500/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-, is inadequate. The injured claimant/appellant claims to be aged about 28 years at the time of accident and working as an Electrician, earning a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 8:30 a.m., on 19-11-2010, when the appellant was travelling in the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-36/H-9070, as a pillion rider on Bangalore-Tumkar Road from Peenya to Mallasandra, Bangalore, at that time, a Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-13/A-1029 came from behind at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle in which, the appellant was traveling. Due to the impact, the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, Dasarahalli, Bangalore, where he took first-aid and thereafter, he, was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, M.G. Road, Bangalore, where he took treatment as in-patient for a period of 16 days from 19-11-2010 to 04-12-2010 and underwent surgeries by spending huge sums. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food, and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated adequately. 3. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 25.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 11th January, 2012. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,65,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,65,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. We have gone through the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company for considerable length of time. 5. It is the case of the appellant that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the appellant, for the reason that the appellant was aged about 28 years, an Electrician by profession, earning a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month. Therefore, reasonable monthly income of the appellant may be reassessed. It is the further case of the appellant that, on account of the grievous injuries sustained, the appellant has undergone treatment for a period of 15 days as in-patient in the Hospital and the Doctor, after considering the nature and gravity of injuries sustained by the appellant, assessed the permanent whole body disability at 30% and the appellant being aged about only 28 years, has to pull on the life with the said disability for the rest of his life and he cannot do the work as he was doing earlier to the accident. On the advise of the Doctor, the appellant has also taken follow up treatment for nearly six months and on account of the permanent disability, he has lost the future happiness, comforts and amenities in life. All these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated or considered by Tribunal, while computing compensation payable to the appellant on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 6. It is also the case of the appellant that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% per annum is on the lower side, for the reason that the accident has occurred during November 2010 and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments, the appellant is entitled to at least 8% to 10% interest per annum. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by enhancing reasonable compensation and also the rate of interest. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for first respondent/Insurance Company, inter alia, sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. However, after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, nature of injuries sustained, gravity of the injuries and also the disability assessed by Doctor, the evidence of the Doctor, nature and duration of treatment undergone and also the fact that at the young age, the appellant has lost the marital life, he fairly submitted that reasonable enhancement may be made, in accordance with law. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, it can be seen that, the occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged about 28 years and working as an Electrician. After going through the entire file, it is seen that the compensation awarded by Tribunal under all the heads is on the lower side, when compared to the gravity of the injuries sustained coupled with the age and avocation of the appellant. Thus, the appellant has made out a case for enhancement of compensation under each head. 9. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries. As per Wound Certificate at Ex. P17, he has sustained avulsed lacerated wound present over the left thigh muscle deep exposing the underlying muscles, vessels and cutaneous tissues, avulsed lacerated wound present over the right thigh, deep muscle exposing the underlying muscles, vessels and cutaneous tissue, multiple abrasions present over lower part of front of abdomen and both feet and avulsed lacerated wound of the penis, scrotum and urethral injury. He was admitted to St. Martha's Hospital on 19-11-2010 and discharged on 01-01-2011. Again he was admitted on 08-02-2011 and discharged on 14-02-2011. He was admitted to St. Martha's Hospital on 19-11-2010 and discharged on 01-01-2011. Again he was admitted on 08-02-2011 and discharged on 14-02-2011. PW 2, Doctor, has deposed that due to the accidental injuries sustained by appellant, he is having pain in his left leg and cannot sit crossed leg, cannot walk and stand for long time. He has further deposed that the appellant, has lost sexual pleasure for his lifetime and is unable to lead marital life. Thus, he assessed the whole body disability at 30% and we accept the same. The appellant being aged about only 28 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Because of the injuries sustained, he must have been away from work for a period of not less than six months. Further, it is seen that the monthly income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- is on the lower side and liable to be re-assessed. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and the year accident, we reassess the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 6,500/-, to meet the ends of justice. Further, it is stated that the appellant took treatment as in-patient for quite a long period on account of grievous injuries sustained and permanent whole body disability. During this period, he must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and must have also spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental expenses. Since the appellant was aged about 28 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier applicable is 17' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, disability, and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand that the appellant, on account of the permanent whole body disability, has lost the sexual pleasure in future, we award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering as against Rs. 50,000/-; Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 1,15,500/-; Rs. 39,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per month for a period of six months as against Rs. 25,000/-; Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness as against Rs. 25,000/-; and Rs. 50,000/-; Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 1,15,500/-; Rs. 39,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per month for a period of six months as against Rs. 25,000/-; Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness as against Rs. 25,000/-; and Rs. 3,97,800/- (i.e. 6,500/- x 12 x 17' x 30/100) towards disability/loss of future income as against Rs. 50,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation to which the appellant would be entitled is, Rs. 7,21,800/- as against Rs. 2,65,500/- awarded by Tribunal and there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 4,56,300/-. 10. Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for appellant, the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is on the lower side as the accident has occurred on 19-11-2010. In view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, we award rate of interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, on the enhanced compensation. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 11th January, 2012, passed in MVC No. 1135/2011, by the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-15), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 7,21,800/- as against Rs. 2,65,500/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows: Towards Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000/- Towards Loss of amenities & enjoyment in life on account of disability Rs. 60,000/- Towards Medical Expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 1,50,000/- Towards Loss of earning during treatment period Rs. 39,000/- Towards disability/loss of future earnings Rs. 3,97,800/- Total Rs. 7,21,800/- The enhanced compensation would be Rs. 4,56,300/- with 8% interest per annum. The first respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,21,800/-, with interest thereon at 8% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 7,21,800/- The enhanced compensation would be Rs. 4,56,300/- with 8% interest per annum. The first respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,21,800/-, with interest thereon at 8% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to him, to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs. 1,56,300/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. Office to draw award, accordingly.