JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 17-1-2011, passed in MVC No. 375 of 2008, by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur (for short Tribunal). 2. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,22,588/- under different heads, after deducting 10% towards contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation, as against the claim of Rs. 35,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him, in the road traffic accident. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are:- The claimant was aged about 51 years at the time of accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as Watchman in Vani Sugar Factory and also doing agriculture. That at about 9.00 p.m. on 10-2-2008, appellant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA.16.G.2159 along with one Chittappa and Rajanna to Government Hospital, Hiriyur for treatment and when he was proceeding in front of Mahalakshmi Fruit Stall, NH 4 Road, Hiriyur, in moderate speed, at that time, the driver of the Car bearing Reg. No. KA.05.MF.62 came from Chitradurga side towards Bangalore in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the back side of his motorcycle and caused the accident. In the accident, appellant and others sustained injuries. Immediately, appellant was shifted to Government Hospital, Hiriyur, then he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bangalore, then to KIMS Hospital, Bangalore and he took treatment for four months and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment. 4. It is the further case of the appellant that he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by him, he has suffered permanent disability and the Doctor has assessed the disability at 75% to the whole body. Therefore, he has filed a claim petitions before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation against the owner and insurer of the Car. 5. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. Therefore, he has filed a claim petitions before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation against the owner and insurer of the Car. 5. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,22,588/- under different heads, after deducting 10% towards contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and 10% negligence fixed on him, appellant has presented this appeal. 6. We have gone through the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned Counsel appearing for Insurer. 7. It is the case of the appellant that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, towards loss of income during treatment period, towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, towards loss of future earnings and in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. To substantiate the same, he has stated that the Doctor-P.W. 2, after clinical examination of the appellant has opined that appellant suffers permanent physical disability of 75% to the whole body, but the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 25% to the whole body. Further, it is the case of the appellant that on account of the injuries, he has undergone treatment for 4 months as inpatient on different occasions, underwent surgeries and on the advise of the doctor, he has taken bed rest and follow-up treatment. Further it is the case of the appellant that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing his income at Rs. 3,500/- per month which is on the lower side and is liable to be reassessed at least at Rs. 6,000/- per month, since he was working as Watchman in Vani Sugar Factory and also doing agriculture and as per Ex. P. 10-Salary certificate, he was drawing the salary of Rs. 5,780/- per month. Further, it is the case of the appellant that 10% negligence fixed by the Tribunal on him cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. P. 10-Salary certificate, he was drawing the salary of Rs. 5,780/- per month. Further, it is the case of the appellant that 10% negligence fixed by the Tribunal on him cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, appearing for the Insurer, inter alia, contended and sought to substantiate that, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary' evidence available on file and after assigning valid reasons and therefore, it does not call for interference. 9. After going through the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer, after careful perusal of the material available on file, 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. 4-wound certificate are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that he was aged about 51 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as Watchman in Vani Sugar Factory and also doing agriculture. It is a fact that, in the accident appellant has sustained injuries, suffered permanent disability. P.W. 2-Doctor has deposed that appellant had decreased control over his bowel and bladder, as per his advise X ray of pelvis with both hips taken and same shows mal united fracture superior and inferior pubic rami of both sides, X ray of cervical spine taken on the same way shows degeneration of C5 and C6 with decreased inter vertebral disc space and further stated that he has assessed the disability upto 75% as per Ex. P. 9. P.W. 2 was cross-examined by the Insurer at length, but nothing worthwhile is elicited. P.W. 2 has admitted that he has not obtained any report from Neuro Surgeon to say that appellant has lost sensation and admitted that no blood sole to the appellant. P. 9. P.W. 2 was cross-examined by the Insurer at length, but nothing worthwhile is elicited. P.W. 2 has admitted that he has not obtained any report from Neuro Surgeon to say that appellant has lost sensation and admitted that no blood sole to the appellant. Taking all these factors into consideration, we reassess the permanent disability at 50% to the whole body instead of 75% and 25% respectively assessed by the Doctor and the Tribunal. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,500/- per month which is on the lower side. Having regard to the age and occupation of the appellant and the year of accident, we reassess his income at Rs. 6,000/- per month instead of Rs. 3,500/- as assessed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. The proper multiplier applicable taking the age of appellant as 51 is 11' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. 11. Admittedly, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken treatment as inpatient and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken follow up treatment for another six months and during the said period, he has not attended his work regularly and he might have sustained financial loss and incurred considerable expenses towards conveyance and other incidental expenses. The disability is permanent in nature, discomforts and unhappiness persists throughout his life and it would affect his happiness m future life and reduces his earning capacity as now he is not in a position to do any work. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering as against Rs. 44,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 36,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period as against Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 3,96,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 12 x 11 x 50%) towards loss of future earnings as against Rs. 1,15,500/- and Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. 12. However, the Tribunal after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 77,620/- towards medical expenses and therefore, it does not call for interference. 1,15,500/- and Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. 12. However, the Tribunal after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 77,620/- towards medical expenses and therefore, it does not call for interference. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 7,09,620/- instead of Rs. 2,47,320/- and the break up is as follows:- (i) Towards injury, pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- (ii) Towards medical expenses Rs. 77,620/- (iii) Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 25,000/- (iv) Towards loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 36,000/- (v) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 75,000/- (vi) Towards loss of future earnings Rs. 3,96,000/- Total Rs. 7,09,620/- 13. Regarding contributory negligence fixed at 10% on the part of the appellant is concerned, it emerges that, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has fixed the negligence at 10% on the part of the appellant after assigning valid reasons. The said reasoning given by the Tribunal for fixing negligence on the part of the appellant is just and proper and it does not call for interference. Out of the compensation of Rs. 7,09,620/- if 10% (Rs. 70,962/-) is deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, the remaining compensation comes to Rs. 6,38,658/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 4,16,070/- (Rs. 6,38,658- Rs. 2,22,588/-) with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation (excluding interest for the delayed period of 231 days in filing the appeal). 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 17-1-2011, passed in MVC No. 375 of 2008, by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur, is hereby modified, by awarding additional compensation of Rs. 4,16,070/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation (excluding interest for the delayed period of 231 days in filing the appeal). The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,16,070/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realisation (excluding interest for the delayed period of 231 days in filing the appeal), within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,16,070/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realisation (excluding interest for the delayed period of 231 days in filing the appeal), within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,16,070/- a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, in the name of the appellant for a period of 10 years and renewable by another 5 years, with liberty reserved him to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. The remaining sum of Rs. 1,16,070/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant. Draw the award accordingly.