JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 26th November, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 49 of 2002, titled as Kehar Singh versus Shri Shamsher Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.73,240/- with interest @ 7½% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The respondents in the claim petition, i.e. the insurer, owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle, have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is adequate? The answer is in negative for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 5. The claimant-injured invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of five lacs, as per the breakups given in the claim petition on the ground that he became the victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Arjun Singh, while driving oil tanker, bearing registration No. HR-37A-2035, rashly and negligently, on 24th September, 2001, at about 8.30 A.M. at place Pulgharat, Mandi Town, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries, was taken to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, and remained admitted there till 11th October, 2001. 6. The perusal of the record does disclose that the claimant-injured suffered fracture of ankle and leg, remained admitted in the hospital with effect from 24th September, 2001 to 11th October, 2001. The disability certificate is also on the record as Ext. Ext. PW5/ A, in terms of which the claimant-injured has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 6%. 7. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. The disability certificate is also on the record as Ext. Ext. PW5/ A, in terms of which the claimant-injured has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 6%. 7. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787 and Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771, has clearly laid down the principles as to how compensation has to be awarded in cases where the claimant has suffered permanent disability and how the assessment is to be made. 8. The Apex Court in its latest decision in the case titled as Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 252 , while discussing its earlier pronouncements, observed that in injury cases, the compensation would include not only the actual expenses incurred, but the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the struggle which the injured has to face throughout his life due to the permanent disability and the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering to undergo for the whole life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the said decision hereunder: “11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.” 9. The claim of the claimant-injured for enhancement has to be tested in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions supra. 10. The Tribunal, after discussing the pleadings and the evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs.30,240/- under the head 'loss of future income', Rs.10,000/- under the head 'expenses on medical treatment', Rs.9,000/- under the head 'loss of earning for three months', Rs.9,000/- under the head 'attendant charges', which amount, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be just and appropriate. 11. The perusal of the disability certificate, Ext. PW5/A, does disclose that the same was issued on 5th April, 2003, in terms of which the claimant-injured was suffering from 6% permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. 11. The perusal of the disability certificate, Ext. PW5/A, does disclose that the same was issued on 5th April, 2003, in terms of which the claimant-injured was suffering from 6% permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. He was attended upon by the attendant during the period he was in hospital, has undergone and has to undergo pain and sufferings. 12. The Tribunal, while taking the income of the claimant-injured to be Rs.3,000/- per month, has awarded Rs.9,000/- under the head 'loss of income for the period he remained admitted', is maintained. 13. The claimant-injured has placed on record the documents, i.e. Marks 1 to 26, which do disclose as to how much amount he has spent on his treatment. He remained on bed rest for more than three months and must have been attended upon by an attendant during the said period, thus, was entitled to compensation under the head 'attendant charges, which he has paid not less than Rs.3,000/- plus other expenses, which can roughly be assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.15,000/- for the period of three months. 14. The disability has also affected the future income of the claimant-injured to the extent of 6%. Thus, by guess work, it can be said that he has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs.500/- per month. 15. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of 14', 13' was to be applied while keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which has been upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in, 2013 AIR SCW 3120, read with the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”). 16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.500/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.78,000/- under the head 'loss of future income'. 17. He has also undergone pain and sufferings during the said period and has to suffer throughout his life. Thus, at least, Rs.50,000/- was to be awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings'. 18. 16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.500/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.78,000/- under the head 'loss of future income'. 17. He has also undergone pain and sufferings during the said period and has to suffer throughout his life. Thus, at least, Rs.50,000/- was to be awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings'. 18. The claimant-injured is also deprived of all comforts and amenities because of the injury sustained by him, thus, is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 19. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in not granting any compensation under the head 'future medical expenses'. Thus, Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head. 20. Viewed thus, claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.9,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.78,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.2,12,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 21. In view of the above, the amount of compensation is enhanced, impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is allowed. 22. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 23. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.