JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by the injured claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 5th January, 2015, passed in MVC No. 4560/2013, by the Judge, Court of Small Causes, XXVI ACMM, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-09), (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 5,51,000/-, awarded in her favour as against her claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 42 years, a home maker and also doing milk vending business, earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 4:30 p.m., on 12-6-2013, when the appellant was travelling as a passenger in a KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-17/F-1181, near Chikkatorapalya bridge, on Bangalore-Magadi Main Road, the driver of the said Bus drove the same, at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor and Trailer bearing Registration Nos. KA-04/1827 and 1828. Due to the impact, the Bus fell into the road side ditch and the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to the Hospital, where she took treatment as in-patient for number of days by spending huge amount. 3. It is the case of the appellant that she has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and, therefore, she has to be compensated adequately. 4. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 25.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 5th January, 2015. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,51,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance, for considerable length of time. 6. 5,51,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance, for considerable length of time. 6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri K.T. Gurudevaprasad, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of income during treatment period, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness in life and loss of future income and also erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the appellant, for the reason that the appellant was aged about 42 years and a home maker and also doing milk vending business, earning a sum of not less than Rs. 15,000/- per month and the accident has occurred in the year 2013. Therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant at least between Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month and awarded reasonable compensation on account of the grievous injuries and disability sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. He further submitted that, on account of the grievous injuries sustained, the appellant has undergone treatment for a period of 22 days as in-patient and the Doctor, after looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, assessed the permanent disability at 40% towards whole body. The appellant has to pull on the life with the said disability for the rest of her life and she cannot do the work as she was doing earlier to the accident. On the advise of the Doctor, the appellant has taken follow-up treatment and on account of the permanent disability, the appellant has lost the future happiness, comforts and amenities in life. Further, he submitted that on account of the grievous injuries and also disability, the appellant will have to incur future medical expenses. All these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by Tribunal, while computing compensation payable to the appellant and no compensation is paid towards future medical expenses. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by enhancing reasonable compensation under all the heads. 7. All these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by Tribunal, while computing compensation payable to the appellant and no compensation is paid towards future medical expenses. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by enhancing reasonable compensation under all the heads. 7. Further, learned counsel appearing for injured claimant/appellant vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is also on the lower side as the accident has occurred on 12-6-2013 and in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, at least 9% to 10% interest per annum may be awarded in the instant case, to meet the ends of justice and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Corporation, inter aha, sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone and hence, interference in the same is unwarranted. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Corporation and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, the only point that aries for our consideration in this appeal is, "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 10. After perusal of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 42 years and a home maker and also doing milk vending business. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, medical expenses and also the disability sustained by appellant, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- towards medical expenses, as per the medical bills and prescriptions. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 11. 1,13,000/- towards medical expenses, as per the medical bills and prescriptions. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 11. However, so far as the compensation awarded under injury, pain and sufferings, loss of income during laid up period, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and loss of future earnings is concerned, the same is on the lower side and needs to be re-determined. Further, no compensation is awarded towards future medical expenses. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries post traumatic T-12 compression fracture of paraplegia with bladder and bowel involvement and also underwent several surgeries. After considering the nature of injuries sustained, the Tribunal, relying upon the oral and documentary evidence and also her avocation, has re-assessed the whole body permanent disability at 35%. The same, in our opinion is on the lower side and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the whole body disability as assessed by the Doctor at 40%, to meet the ends of justice. The appellant being aged about 42 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of her life. Further, it is seen that the monthly income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- is on the lower side and having regard to the age, avocation and the year accident, we re-assess the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 7,000/-, to meet the ends of justice. Further, it is stated that the appellant took treatment as in-patient for a period of 22 days on account of permanent physical disability. During this period, she must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and must have also spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental expenses. Further, on account of the grievous injuries and permanent disability sustained, the appellant has to be under continuous medication through out her life. The appellant was aged about 42 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is 14' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ). The appellant was aged about 42 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is 14' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ). Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries, disability, nature and duration of treatment undergone and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings as against Rs. 35,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 11,000/-; Rs. 42,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month for a period of six months as against Rs. 24,000/-; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability; Rs. 2000/- towards future medical expenses, as the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards this head and Rs. 4,70,000/-(i.e. Rs. 7,000/- x 12 14' x 40%) towards loss of future income as against Rs. 3,53,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 12. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 10,95,400/- as against Rs. 5,51,000/- awarded by Tribunal and there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 5,44,400/-. 13. Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for appellant, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 12-6-2013. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 9% per annum, on the enhanced compensation. 14. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 5th January, 2015, passed in MVC No. 4560/2013, by the Judge, Court of Small Causes, XXVI ACMM, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-09), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 10,95,400/- as against Rs. 5,51,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows :- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 10,95,400/- as against Rs. 5,51,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows :- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 1,50,000/- Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life on account of disability Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 1,13,000/- Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- Towards loss of future earning Rs. 4,70,400/- Towards loss of income during treatment period Rs. 42,000/- Towards future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 10,95,400/- 15. There would be enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,44,400/- with 9% interest per annum. 16. The respondent/Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,44,400/-, with interest thereon at 9% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. 17. On such deposit by the Corporation, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalised Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. 18. Remaining sum of Rs. 1,44,400/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately on deposit by the Corporation. 19. Office to draw award accordingly.