JUDGMENT : Rathnakala, J. The appellant/claimant is aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the 6th Addl. Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-2) (for short, Tribunal) in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 24-09-2010 at 7.30 a.m. 2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal, contending that on 24-09-2010 at 7.30 a.m. while he was standing on the side of Whitefield Main Road, near Manasa Driving School, a Lorry bearing registration No. KA-02/A-5688 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him, resultantly, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, for first aid treatment, thereafter, to Nimhans Hospital. From there, he was treated as inpatient at a private Hospital, Tamil Nadu. From the date of accident, intermittently he was inpatient for a period of seven months. He was hale and healthy, working as a mason and earning a sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month. Subsequent to the accident, he is incapacitated to earn and carry on his routine life. Criminal case is registered against the driver of the lorry. He has sustained fractures to the posterior/postero-Axillary shafts of left sided 8th, 9th and 10th ribs, displaced with left sided Haemo-Pneumothorax, fatty infiltration of the liver, posterior abdominal wall haematoma, renal vascular pedicular injury, spine injury etc. The case was contested by the owner of the lorry. The Tribunal on overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed by the both parties, allowed the claim petition in part by awarding a compensation of Rs. 6,64,700/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 3. Sri. K.T. Gurudeva Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant submits that while capitalizing the compensation, the Tribunal lost sight of nature of injuries suffered by him and its consequences and repercussion, his monthly income for the purpose of assessing loss of income during treatment period and loss of earning capacity was taken only at Rs. 4,500/- per month though his income was more than Rs. 10,000/- per month from his masonry work. In view of the injuries, he could not lead normal life as before. No amount is awarded towards loss of amenities and loss of marital prospects. 4,500/- per month though his income was more than Rs. 10,000/- per month from his masonry work. In view of the injuries, he could not lead normal life as before. No amount is awarded towards loss of amenities and loss of marital prospects. Even now, he is suffering from various problems, in view of the injuries sustained during the accident. The doctor who examined his as testified before the Court that, he has suffered 62.50% of disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has considered only 30% which is substantially lessened to the compensation. Hence, the judgment and award of the tribunal may be modified by awarding just and reasonable compensation. 4. Sri. H.C. Vrushabendraiah, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/insurer submits that the appellant had not examined the doctor who treated him, but PW2/Doctor had examined him clinically only to assess percentage of disability. No documentary evidence was produced by the claimant in respect of his income. In that view of the matter, the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month assessed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. The amount awarded under the other heads also is just and reasonable. Hence, the interference by this Court is not called for. 5. In the light of the above rival submissions and also perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arises for my consideration is : Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and disproportionate? 6. There is no dispute about occurrence of the accident on 24.09.2010 involving the Lorry bearing registration No. KA-02/A-5688 which belongs to the respondent No. 1/owner and insured by the respondent No. 2/Insurer and nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and also treatment undergone by him. Having regard to the age of the claimant, his profession and date of accident, his income may be safely assessed at Rs. 6,500/- per month. He was hospitalized for a period of three months, thereafter, he required 11 months to recover from the pain and suffering due to the injuries sustained. In that view of the matter, he is entitled a compensation towards loss of income during the treatment period at Rs. 71,500/- for 11 months (Rs. 6,500/- x 11). The Tribunal has taken permanent disability of the claimant at 30% only as against 62.50% assessed by the Doctor. In that view of the matter, he is entitled a compensation towards loss of income during the treatment period at Rs. 71,500/- for 11 months (Rs. 6,500/- x 11). The Tribunal has taken permanent disability of the claimant at 30% only as against 62.50% assessed by the Doctor. However, considering the present physical status of the claimant, I am of the considered opinion, the 45% disability would be appropriate. He was aged about 22 years as on the date of the accident. The multiplier applicable to the age of 22 is 18 (as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 : (ADR. 2009 SC 3104). Accordingly, his loss of future income works out to Rs. 6,31,800/ - (Rs. 6,500/- x 12 x 45 x 18/100 = 6,31,800) as against Rs. 2,91,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. No amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities, loss of marital prospects and also future medical expenses, under these heads, he is entitled a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The Tribunal on the basis of the documentary evidence and also duration of treatment undergone, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,87,100/- towards medical expenses, attendant, food, diet, nourishment and conveyance etc. which does not call for interference. Towards pain and suffering, he is entitled for additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thereby, the appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,90,400/- as against Rs. 6,64,700/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, there would be enhancement of Rs. 6,25,700/- with 8% interest p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 7. The appeal is allowed in part. 8. The judgment and award dated 05-11-2012 in M.V.C. No. 889/2011 by the VI Addl. Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-2), is modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs. 6,25,700/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 9. Respondent No. 3/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,25,700/- with accrued interest before the Tribunal within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 10. Out of the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 6,25,700/-, Rs. 6,25,700/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 9. Respondent No. 3/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,25,700/- with accrued interest before the Tribunal within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 10. Out of the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 6,25,700/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- with accrued interest shall be invested in the name of appellant/claimant in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank/Grameena Bank of claimants choice for a period of 5 years renewable by another three terms, with liberty to him to draw the interest accrued on it, periodically. 11. Rest of the amount shall be disbursed in his favour. 12. The case records shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 13. Draw the award, accordingly.