JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the claimant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 24th August, 2013 passed in MVC No. 886 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short). By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,52,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation as against the claim made by the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 2. It is the case of the appellant that, he was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and doing painting work and earning not less than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. On 29-4-2012 at about 2.30 p.m. he was proceeding by walk inside the KSRTC City Bus Stand with an intention to go to his house at Gandhi Nagar No. KA-09-F-4813 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner inside the bus stand by violating the speed limit and dashed against the appellant. Due to the impact, he fell down and the rear wheel of the bus moved on his left leg, as a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries to his left leg, head and other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore where he took treatment as inpatient from 29-4-2012. He took treatment for head injury, grievous crush injuries to his leg. Surgery was done for fracture of his femur, knee joint both bones of left leg. Implants were inserted; still he is undergoing treatment as inpatient. The appellant has spent more than Rs. 3,00,000/- for medical treatment. Inspite of best medical treatment, the appellant is suffering from the physical disability. Due to the accidental injuries and physical disability, it is not possible for him to carry on his profession as before. He has undergone treatment for a period of 8 months. The appellant is taking follow up treatment and he has to undergo one more operations for skin grafting as per the advise of the doctor and now also he is taking treatment and the doctor has assessed permanent disability at 52% to 55% and there is complete restriction of movement of his left thigh, left waist and left leg portion. The appellant is taking follow up treatment and he has to undergo one more operations for skin grafting as per the advise of the doctor and now also he is taking treatment and the doctor has assessed permanent disability at 52% to 55% and there is complete restriction of movement of his left thigh, left waist and left leg portion. Out of it, if 1/3rd is taken, it comes to 18.33% and it is rounded off to 20% disability to the whole body. Further case of the appellant is that, he has spent huge amount for treatment, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The 2nd respondent appeared through his Counsel and filed the objections and denied the negligent driving on the part of the driver and stated that the appellant himself in an intoxication state walking near city bus stand inspite of driving the bus with conscious while taking the vehicle in the reverse direction, the appellant himself touched the bus and fell down. Due to his own negligence, he sustained injury and the driver is not responsible for the accident. Therefore, the insurer has stated in the objection, it is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. To substantiate his case, the appellant himself examined as P.W. 1 and got marked documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 72 and examined the doctor as P.W. 2-Dr. Kaladagi and closed evidence. On the other hand the driver of the bus examined himself as R.W. 1 and got marked documents-Ex. R. 1 and closed his evidence. On the basis of the records the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the appellant proves that on 29-4-2012 at about 2.30 p.m. while he was proceeding by walk inside KSRTC Bus Stand, in Mysore City to go over to his house, a KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-09-F-4813 driven by the first respondent came in a great speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and dashed to the appellant, who fell down and sustained severe crush injuries? 2. Whether the appellant is further able to prove that on account of the said accident he suffered permanent disability? 3. No. KA-09-F-4813 driven by the first respondent came in a great speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and dashed to the appellant, who fell down and sustained severe crush injuries? 2. Whether the appellant is further able to prove that on account of the said accident he suffered permanent disability? 3. Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the petition? 4. What order? 3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,52,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, insofar as it relates to pain and sufferings, medical and traveling expenses, attendance charges, special diet etc. loss of future earning capacity and also disability on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 5. Sri H.V. Bhanuprakash, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and future medical expenses and other heads. The Tribunal has erred in not assessing the reasonable whole body disability as per Ex. P. 70. The Tribunal further erred in assessing income of the appellant. The accident occurred on 29-4-2012 and he was aged about 36 years. The appellant took treatment for a period of 8 months in the hospital and opined after thorough medical and radiological examination, that there is functional disability or 52%-55% towards left limb and out of it if 1/3rd is taken, it comes to i.e. 18.33% which is rounded off to 20%. Further he submitted that as the doctor opined that there is a severe disability on the left leg of the appellant and is unable to move or fold the left leg, he is unable to sit or stand on the floor and put bandage to his injury and spanning external is fixed and his left leg, thigh portion is completely disabled. His left waist portion and the left leg are very weak there is complete restriction in the movement and he is unable to do any work. Further Doctor opined that he has to undergo surgeries. Therefore, impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified awarding just and reasonable compensation and also enhance the rate of interest at 9% to 10% per annum. 6. Per contra, Sri N. Dinesh Rao, for M/s. Rao Associates, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and is passed after considering the oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for. 7. 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?" 8. Occurrence of the accident resulting in the injuries to the appellant is not in dispute. Further it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident and hale and healthy and working as painter, and getting income of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. But, the Tribunal took Rs. 3,000/- p.m. as his income, which is on the lower side. The appellant met with an accident on 29-4-2012 and has sustained grievous fracture injuries and undergone several operations. As per the X-Ray report there is a severe disability on the left leg of the appellant and he is unable to move or fold the left leg and is unable to sit or stand on the floor and put bandage to his injury and spanning external is fixed and his left leg, thigh portion is completely disabled. His left waist portion and the left leg are very weak and there is complete restriction in the movement and he is unable to do any work. He took treatment for period of 8 months. The doctor advised bed rest and follow up treatment. His left waist portion and the left leg are very weak and there is complete restriction in the movement and he is unable to do any work. He took treatment for period of 8 months. The doctor advised bed rest and follow up treatment. He sustained disability to an extent of 52%-55% and as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant out of which if 1/3rd is taken it comes to 18.33%, which is rounded off to 20% the whole body. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for enhancement of reasonable compensation under different heads. Further, the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal is lower side and having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, we deem it fit to reassess the income at Rs. 6,500/- per month, to meet the ends of justice and appropriate multiplier applicable is 15' considering the age of the appellant who was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we deem fit to award Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- towards extra nourishment as against Rs. 16,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 25,000/-. Rs. 2,34,000/- (Rs. 6,500/- x 12 x 15 x 20/100) towards loss of future earning capacity as against Rs. 1,35,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical expenses. 9. However, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 48,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and Rs. 48,000/- towards attendant charges. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% is on the lower side and accident occurred in the year 2012 and in the light of catena of judgments, we deem it fit to award 9% interest per annum on enhanced compensation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 24th August, 2013 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 886 of 2012 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 24th August, 2013 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 886 of 2012 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 5,95,000/- with 9% interest per annum on the enhanced sum as against Rs. 3,52,000/- and the breakup is as follows: Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000/- Towards  medical expenses Rs. 40,000/- Towards extra nourishment Rs. 50,000/- Towards attendant charges Rs. 48,000/- Towards loss of income during treatment in the hospital Rs. 48,000/- Loss of amenities and marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/- Further loss of income due to permanent disability (Rs. 6,500/- x 12 x 15 x 20/100) Rs. 2,34,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 5,95,000/- The 2nd respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,43,000/- 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 and award. Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised/Scheduled/Grameena Bank, in the name of the appellant for a period of ten years and renewable for another ten years, with liberty to him to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it. The remaining Rs. 1,43,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately, on deposit by the 2nd respondent-Corporation. Draw the award, accordingly.