JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 11th May, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.21/NL/2 of 2007, titled Sadh Ram Chandel vs. Sanjay Rao and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,52,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The owner/insured, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the claimant/injured has challenged the impugned award by the medium of instant appeal, on the sole ground that the compensation awarded is meager. 4. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or inadequate, meaning thereby that this Court has to return the findings on the point whether the amount of compensation is just in terms of the mandate of Sections 166, read with Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the M.V. Act). 5. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/injured became victim of vehicular accident, which was caused by Ramesh Kumar, driver, (respondent No.2), while driving tanker bearing No.HP-23-2500 rashly and negligently on 1st February, 2007. The offending vehicle hit the motorcycle, on which the claimant was traveling, near Chaudhari Dhaba, Dattowal, Nalagarh. In regard to the accident, FIR bearing No.38/07, dated 1st February, 2007, was also registered at Police Station Nalagarh under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. After the accident, the injured was taken to the hospital, Nalagarh, from where was shifted to Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir, remained admitted for two months and suffered permanent disability, which was assessed to the extent of 80%. Thus, the injured claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, particularly, in paragraphs 13, 21 and 22. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents, by filing replies. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Thus, the injured claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, particularly, in paragraphs 13, 21 and 22. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents, by filing replies. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries on account of rash/negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.2? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the accident has taken place due to negligence of the petitioner himself? OPR-1 & 2 4. Whether the respondent No.2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and proper documents? OPR-3 5. Relief.” 8. The findings returned on issues No.1, 3 and 4 are not in dispute. Accordingly, the same are upheld. It is also not in dispute as to who is liable to pay the compensation, since the Tribunal has saddled the insurer with the liability and the insurer has not questioned the same, thus, it has to satisfy the award. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No.2 to that extent are upheld. 9. Now what remains to be determined in the instant appeal is - to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to? 10. The claimant has specifically pleaded in the Claim Petition that he remained admitted in the hospital for a period of two months and had to spend Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, granted Rs.50,000/- under the said heads in lump sum. No doubt, the claimant has placed on record various medical bills and other documents to show that he was entitled to more than Rs.50,000/- under the said heads, but the said bills were never proved by the claimant. Thus, I also deem it proper to hold that Rs.50,000/- can be said to be just amount under the said heads. 11. Claimant has sustained 80% disability, which is permanent in nature and which has affected his earning capacity. In order to prove the factum of disability, the claimant has examined PW-3 Dr. Asheesh Sharma, who was the member of the Medical Board constituted for assessing the percentage of disability earned by the claimant. PW-3 Dr. 11. Claimant has sustained 80% disability, which is permanent in nature and which has affected his earning capacity. In order to prove the factum of disability, the claimant has examined PW-3 Dr. Asheesh Sharma, who was the member of the Medical Board constituted for assessing the percentage of disability earned by the claimant. PW-3 Dr. Asheesh Sharma has clearly stated that the claimant had suffered 80% permanent disability, qua which disability certificate Ext.PW-3/A was issued by the Medical Board. after examining all the documents and the physical condition of the injured. The question is whether the disability suffered by the claimant has affected the earning capacity of the injured in future and if so, to what extent. 12. PW-3 Dr. Asheesh Sharma has only proved the disability certificate and has not given the details of what is the effect of the disability. However, the medical summary was placed on record which does disclose that the injured remained admitted in the hospital for about two months, also sustained injuries on hip region and grafting was also done, meaning thereby that the accident had definitely shattered the physical frame of the claimant. 13. The claimant has specifically averred in the claim petition that he was contractor by profession and the injury/disability has affected his earning capacity. The claimant has pleaded and proved that his income, per month, was Rs.20,000/-. But the Tribunal, taking into account the income tax return filed by the injured, inferred the monthly income of the claimant to be not more than Rs.8,200/- or Rs.98,400/- per annum. The claimant has placed no other material on record in order to prove that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, as pleaded in the claim petition. Therefore, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the injured as Rs.8,200/-. Accordingly, it is held that the monthly income of the claimant/injured was Rs.8,200/-. 14. Coming to the disability earned by the petitioner as a result of the accident, it has been established by the claimant/injured, by leading evidence, that he suffered 80% permanent disability in respect of lower limb. After the disability, the claimant would not be in a position to perform the job of contractor as he would have been performing prior to the accident. He may also have been rendered incapacitated for doing heavy work consequent to the disability suffered by him. After the disability, the claimant would not be in a position to perform the job of contractor as he would have been performing prior to the accident. He may also have been rendered incapacitated for doing heavy work consequent to the disability suffered by him. The claimant was 48 years of age at the time of accident, meaning thereby that he may be at the peak of his profession, which would have suffered a lot after the disability incurred by the claimant. 15. Therefore, in my opinion, the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the disability has affected the future earning capacity of the claimant/injured to the extent of only 40%. On the contrary, keeping in view the profession of the claimant and the discussion made hereinabove, it can safely be inferred that the loss of future earning capacity was not less than 50%, if not 80% or 100%. 16. Having said so, it is held that loss of future monthly income to the claimant was 50% of his monthly income i.e. 50% of Rs.8,200/- i.e. Rs.4,100/-. 17. The age of the claimant/injured was 48 years. The Tribunal has also fallen in error in applying the multiplier of 10, instead, in view the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, read with Schedule-II attached to the M.V.Act, multiplier 12 was applicable. Accordingly, multiplier 12 is applied. 18. Thus, the claimant/injured is held entitled to Rs.4100 x 12 x 12 = Rs.5,90,400/-, under the head ‘loss of future earning capacity’. 19. In the instant case, the claimant has proved on record that he remained admitted in the hospital for a period of about two months. After the discharge from the hospital, the claimant would also have remained confined to the bed and he might have not returned to his job immediately on the discharge from the hospital. Such period of confinement to the bed, by exercising guess work, can be said to be not less than six months and during this period, the claimant can be said to have not earned a single penny. Such period of confinement to the bed, by exercising guess work, can be said to be not less than six months and during this period, the claimant can be said to have not earned a single penny. Accordingly, he is also held entitled to Rs.8,200/- x 6 = Rs.49,200/- under the head ‘loss of income during the said period. 20. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’, which, in my view, is on the lower side. 21. 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 claimants have suffered permanent disability and how the assessment is to be made. 22. The claimant/injured, as discussed hereinabove, remained admitted in the hospital and thereafter, was confined to the bed for a considerable long period. The claimant suffered 80% permanent disability and became handicapped for whole life. The accident has also shattered the physical frame of the claimant. Thus, the claimant suffered a lot and has to suffer throughout his life. 23. Accordingly, I am of the opinion, that the claimant is also entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings undergone’ and Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘future pain and sufferings’. 24. The claimant, at the time of accident, was 48 years of age and because of the permanent disability suffered by him to the extent of 80%, he would face hardships throughout his life, which may also result in frustration and mental stress. Therefore, the claimant is also entitled to Rs.1.00 lac under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 25. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, which has resulted into 80% permanent disability, the claimant may have to undergo medical check-ups/treatment, at intervals, throughout his life. Thus, hypothetically, I deem it proper to award Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘future medical treatment’. 26. 25. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, which has resulted into 80% permanent disability, the claimant may have to undergo medical check-ups/treatment, at intervals, throughout his life. Thus, hypothetically, I deem it proper to award Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘future medical treatment’. 26. Having glance of the above discussion, the claimant is awarded Rs.9,39,600/-, under different heads as under: (i) Loss of future earning capacity : Rs.5,90,400/- (ii) Loss of income during the period of hospitalization and confinement to bed : Rs.49,200/- (iii) Medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges: Rs.50,000/- (iv) Future medical treatment : Rs.50,000/- (v) Pain and sufferings undergone: Rs.50,000/- (vi) Future pain and sufferings : Rs.50,000/- (vii) Loss of amenities of life: Rs.1,00,000/-. 27. As far as interest is concerned, the amount awarded under the heads ‘loss of future earning capacity’, ‘future medical treatment’, ‘future pain and suffering’ and ‘loss of amenities of life’, shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of passing of the impugned award i.e. 11th May, 2009, till deposit, while the amount awarded under the remaining three heads i.e. ‘pain and suffering undergone’, ‘loss of income during the period of hospitalization and confinement to bed’ and ‘medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges’ shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit. 28. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount, alongwith interest, in favour of the claimant, after proper identification.