JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. This appeal by the injured claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated : 5th September, 2014, passed in MVC No. 667/2007, by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - 7, Bangalore, (for short, Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 11,77,000/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 30,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 36 years, a home maker and also a forward agriculturist, owning 35 acres of land, growing commercial crops and earning a sum of Rs 40,000/- per month. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That at about 10:00 a.m., on 26-6-2016, when the appellant was standing with his scooter bearing Registration No. KA-01/H-3944, on NH-7 road side near Huvina Muniyappas land where his land is situated abutting to it, at that time, a Tempo bearing Registration No. KA-40/A-81 being driven by its driver at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter. Due to the impact, the appellant was thrown at a distance and he suffered severe injuries like fracture mid shaft of left humerus, comminuted fractures of upper end of radius and ulna with loss of bone, fractures of right pubic bone and left iliac bone, fracture of left side rigs, diffuse brain injury with tentorial haematoma contusion over liver, abrasions over forehead, nose and left foot and swelling over left elbow and on other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Chikkaballapur for immediate treatment when to Mallya Hospital and admitted from 26-6-2006 to 5-8-2006 and then to Sarvodaya Hospital, Magadi Road, where he was admitted from 6-8-2006 to 25-12-2006 and still under extra medical care and attendants. 3. It is the case of the appellant that he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he 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. 30.00 lakhs against the respondents. 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. 30.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 5th September, 2014. 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. 11,77,000/- 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 second respondent/insurance Company, for considerable length of time. 6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri. T.C. Sathishkumar, 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 36 years and a home maker and also an active agriculturist, earning a sum of not less than Rs. 40,000/- per month and the accident has occurred in the year 2006. Therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant at least between Rs. 7,000/- and 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 nearly six months as in-patient and the Doctor, after looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, assessed the permanent cognitive disability at 63% and the appellant has to pull on the life with the said disability for the rest of his life and he cannot do the work as he 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. The appellant has completely lost the marital bliss on account of the grievous injuries and disability sustained in the road traffic accident. All these aspects of the matter have not been properly taken into consideration by Tribunal, while computing compensation payable to the appellant. Therefore, 100% disability may be assessed for awarding compensation payable towards loss of future income and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified, by enhancing reasonable compensation under all the heads. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for second respondent/insurance Company, inter alia, 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. He further drew our attention to the evidence of PWs. 4 to 6 and submitted that the appellant has not produced any credible document to show that there is loss of agricultural income except supervisory charges. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for second respondent/Insurance Company and after perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is, "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 9. 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 36 years, a home maker and also an active agriculturist by profession. 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. 5,69,000/- towards medical expenses, as per the medical bills and prescriptions Rs. 1,50,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings and Rs. 5,69,000/- towards medical expenses, as per the medical bills and prescriptions Rs. 1,50,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings and Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical expenses. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 10. However, so far as the compensation awarded under 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. Admittedly, in view of the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries viz. abrasion over forehead, nose and left foot to swelling over left elbow. X-ray left humerus shows the fracture midshaft left humerus, communited fracture upper ends of radius and ulna and X-ray of pelvic shows fracture right pubic bone and left iliac bone. It is further stated that the appellant underwent ORIF with interlocking nail, ORIF with K-wire and recon plated screws left ulna, ORIF fracture pelvic attempted + femoral vein tear repaid, ORIF with screw fixation coronoid process left ulna and tracheostomy was done. It is further stated that the appellant took further follow-up treatment with Dr. H.S. Chandrashekar, Orthopedic Surgeon as outpatient Department of Mally Hospital and he has given the Disability Certificate, which are left elbow flexion 90 to 120 degree extension restricted, supination and pronation absent, hips movements normal and knee movements normal. He has further assessed the disability at 45% towards left upper limb and 15% towards whole body. But, the Tribunal, on re-assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, has re-assessed the whole body disability at 30%. The same, in our opinion is on the lower side and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of injuries and also disability coupled with the age and avocation of the appellant, we re-assess the whole body disability at 50%, to meet the ends of justice. The appellant being aged about only 36 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Regarding monthly income, it is stated that there is loss of agricultural income. But, no substantive material are produced. The appellant being aged about only 36 years, has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Regarding monthly income, it is stated that there is loss of agricultural income. But, no substantive material are produced. There may be loss of supervision on account of the grievous injuries and disability suffered by the appellant and the income from agriculture continues even in the absence of the appellant, but with supervisory charges to be paid by the appellant. Considering the age, avocation and also the year of accident, being 2006, we are of the view that the monthly income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 4,500/- is just and proper and it does not call for interference. Further, it is stated that the appellant took treatment as in-patient in different hospitals on different occasions. During this period, he must have undergone lot of unsaid pain and agony and must have also spent reasonable sum to wards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from incidental expenses. The appellant was aged about 36 years at the time of accident and therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is 15 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Vermas 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 775,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against 738,000/-; 754,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of 74,500/- per month for a period of twelve months as against Rs. 727,000/-; Rs. 72,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability as against Rs. 71,00,000/-; Rs. 74,05,000/- (i.e. Rs. 74,500/- x 12 x 15 x 50/100) towards loss of future income as against Rs. 72,43,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 11. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 715,03,000/- as against Rs. 711,77,000/- awarded by Tribunal and there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 73,26,000/-. 12. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. 72,43,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 11. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 715,03,000/- as against Rs. 711,77,000/- awarded by Tribunal and there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 73,26,000/-. 12. 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 IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXTV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 7, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 715,03,000/- as against Rs. 711,77,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The break-up is as follows : Towards Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,50,000/- Towards loss of amenities & enjoyment in life on account of disability Rs. 2,00,000/- Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 5,69,000/- Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 75,000/- Towards loss of future earning Rs. 4,05,000/- Towards loss of income during treatment period Rs. 54,000/- Towards future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 15,03,000/- 13. There would be enhanced compensation of Rs. 73,26,000/- with 6% interest per annum. 14. The second respondent/insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 73,26,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. 15. On such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 72,00,000/- 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 him to withdraw the periodical interest. 16. Remaining sum of Rs. 71,26,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately on deposit by the Insurance Company. 17. Office to draw award, accordingly.