JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 12th March, 2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 4300/2013 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore (SCCH:15) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) . 2. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,54,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, on account of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant felt it necessitated to present this appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are : The appellant was aged about 37 years and hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was working as a Technician, getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. He met with an accident on 3.2.2013 at about 11.15 a.m. when he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-03/EJ-9788 slowly and cautiously towards Betta Alasur village junction, the driver of Mahindra Logan car bearing registration No. KA-53/A-1685 came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his two-wheeler, on account of which, he fell down and suffered grievous injuries all over the body. He was admitted to hospital and kept in ICU for 20 days. The Doctor on radiological examination has assessed permanent disability at 22% to the whole body. Further, it is the case of the appellant that he suffered mental pain and agony and spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, attendant and conveyance charges and he has to suffer the discomfort throughout his life and hence, he has to be compensated reasonably. Because of the injuries suffered, there is a dislocation of the right sterno-clavicular joint and the left acromion clavicular joint with resultant gross deformities. On account of the injuries sustained, the appellant was constrained to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation against the respondents. 4. The said matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has partly allowed the petition awarding a sum of Rs. 6,54,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 4. The said matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has partly allowed the petition awarding a sum of Rs. 6,54,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented the instant appeal seeking enhancement contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. N.S. Bhat, at the outset, is that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in awarding compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food, attendant charges, loss of income during laid-up period, loss of amenities, loss of future income and future medical and incidental expenses. What is awarded is on the lower side. Further he sought to substantiate that the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- per month is on the lower side. It is submitted that, he was earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 8500/- per month. He also submitted that, the appellant suffered mental pain and agony during treatment period and had undergone treatment in ICU for 20 days. The Doctor, who treated him, has assessed the disability at 22% to the whole body. He spent considerable amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. Further, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. At least 9% interest per annum ought to have been awarded. Hence, he has to be compensated with reasonable compensation for the disability suffered by him. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation reasonably. 6. As against this, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2/- insurer inter alia contended and sought to substantiate that the Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly awarded reasonable compensation under all heads by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The Tribunal is also justified in awarding the rate of interest @ 8% per annum. Therefore, he submits that interference by this Court is not called for. 7. The Tribunal is also justified in awarding the rate of interest @ 8% per annum. Therefore, he submits that interference by this Court is not called for. 7. After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 8. The occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that, he was aged 37 years, hale and healthy and working as a Technician, when the accident occurred. On account of the accident, he suffered fracture of shaft right humerus radial nerve palsy, left acromion clavicular dislocation, left side sacral fracture, right side clavical sturnal joint dislocation, bilateral hemothorax right side subcutaneous emphysemia fracture of left souputa bilateral superior and inferior pubic ram, Transcient Amnesia, head injury and other injuries all over the body. He was admitted in the ICU for 20 days. He examined the Doctor/PW-2, who in turn, on clinical and radiological examination assessed the disability at 22% to the whole body. In accepting the same and as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has erred in not taking reasonable income of the appellant. Having regard to the age and avocation of the appellant, we re-assess the income @ Rs. 8,000/- per month. We presume that on the advice of the Doctor, he must have taken rest for at least six months and he has to suffer discomfort throughout his life. Since he was aged 37 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 15'. We accept the evidence of the Doctor, who opined that the appellant has to be subjected to undergo one more surgery and he requires Rs. 1,20,000/- towards future medical expenses. 9. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, we award Rs. 50,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 25,000/-; Rs. 48,000/- (Rs. 8,000/- x 6 months) towards loss of income during laid-up period as against Rs. 25,000/- ; Rs. 70,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded under said head and Rs. 30,000/- awarded towards physical impairment; Rs. 3,16,800/- (Rs. 50,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 25,000/-; Rs. 48,000/- (Rs. 8,000/- x 6 months) towards loss of income during laid-up period as against Rs. 25,000/- ; Rs. 70,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded under said head and Rs. 30,000/- awarded towards physical impairment; Rs. 3,16,800/- (Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 15 x 22/100) towards loss of future income as against Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2,37,000/- towards medical expenses and hence, it does not call for interference. 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation under different heads on account of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident, the break up of which is as follows : 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,37,000/- 3. Conveyance, attendant charges Rs. 50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities Rs. 70,000/- 5. Loss of future income Rs. 3,16,800/- 6. Future medical expenses Rs. 1,20,000/- 7. Loss of income during laid-up period Rs. 48,000/- Total Rs. 8,91,800/- 11. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 8,91,800/- as against Rs. 6,54,500/- awarded by Tribunal i.e., there will be enhancement of compensation of Rs. 2,37,300/-. 12. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, we award interest @ 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition till realization. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. 14. The impugned judgment and award dated 12th March, 2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 4300/2013 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore (SCCH:15), is hereby modified, awarding additional compensation of Rs. 2,37,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. 15. 14. The impugned judgment and award dated 12th March, 2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 4300/2013 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore (SCCH:15), is hereby modified, awarding additional compensation of Rs. 2,37,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. 15. The second respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and award. 16. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,37,300/-, 50% of the same with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled/Grameena Bank for a period of five years and renewable for another - five years, with liberty to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. 17. Remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant on deposit by the second respondent. 18. Office to draw the award, accordingly.