JUDGMENT : K.S. MUDAGAL, J. 1. This claimant's appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 05.01.2010 in M.V.C. No.5267/2008 passed by the III Additional Small Causes Court and MACT, Bengaluru. The first respondent is the insurer and the second respondent is the owner of lorry No.AP-04-V-5973, which was involved in the accident. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the Tribunal. 2. On 24.02.2008 at about 8.00 a.m., when the claimant was proceeding along with her grand son near Hebbal Ring road circle, Bengaluru, lorry No.AP-04-V-5973 hit her and caused the accident. She filed M.V.C.No.5267/2008 contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and due to the accident, she suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability. Thus, she claimed compensation of Rs.17,70,000/-. 3. The insurer alone contested the petition denying the accident, the injuries allegedly suffered by the victim, the disability, her age, income etc., and its liability. 4. Parties adduced evidence. On petitioner's side PW.1 to 3 are examined and Exhibits.P.1 to P.27 are marked. The insurer did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal, on hearing the parties, by the impugned award granted compensation of Rs.1,01,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the following heads:- HEADS Rs. Pain and Sufferings 35,000-00 Medical Expenses 3,500-00 Loss of earning during laid up period 8,000-00 Loss future earning capacity 39,600-00 Loss of future amenities and future happiness 10,000-00 Attendant charges, diet and traveling 5,000-00 Total 1,01,100-00 5. Sri Y. Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant seeks to assail the impugned award on the following grounds: (i) The assessment of permanent disability by the Tribunal is against the evidence of the doctor - P.W.2 and other medical records. The assessment of income of the victim is on the lower side. Consequently the compensation awarded on the head of loss of future earnings and loss of income during the laid up period is on the lower side. (ii) The compensation awarded on the head of pain and suffering is on lower side. (iii) The compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the lower side. 6. Shri. S.Y.Shivalli, learned Counsel for Respondent no.1 seeks to justify the award contending that the compensation awarded on all the heads is based on the evidence adduced. 7. (ii) The compensation awarded on the head of pain and suffering is on lower side. (iii) The compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the lower side. 6. Shri. S.Y.Shivalli, learned Counsel for Respondent no.1 seeks to justify the award contending that the compensation awarded on all the heads is based on the evidence adduced. 7. None of the respondents challenged the occurrence of the accident and the finding that it was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.AP-04-V-5973 by its driver and the liability of the insurer. Therefore those findings have attained finality. Reg. Loss of Future Earning Capacity 8. According to the petitioner, immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Bangalore Baptist Hospital and was treated there. Exhibit P.6 is the Wound Certificate issued by the Bangalore Baptist Hospital. As per Exhibit P.6, the claimant has suffered the following injuries: 1. Compression fracture T6 and L1 Vertebral Column 2. Left Side 4th Rib fracture 9. In the petition also, the petitioner gives the description of only the above said two injuries. PW.2 speaks of host of injuries and disability to the extent of 35% to the whole body to the claimant. The Tribunal rejected his evidence on the ground that he is not the doctor who treated the claimant either in Baptist Hospital or in M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and his evidence smacks exaggeration. 10. PW.2 states that he is treating the claimant since 1.7.2008. There is no document to prove the same. He says that on 7.10.2009, he examined the claimant in Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital to assess the disability. Exhibit P.23 dated 7.10.2009 is the disability assessment record issued by him in Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital. Only that document bears his signature. That goes to show that he has seen the claimant after 1 year 8 months of the accident. 11. Even as per Exhibit P.26, Discharge Summary issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, the claimant has suffered only the above said two injuries. The Discharge Summary shows that the patient was discharged in a stable condition and she was treated conservatively. There is no proximity between the accident and the injuries spoken to by PW.2 other than the aforesaid two injuries. 11. Even as per Exhibit P.26, Discharge Summary issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, the claimant has suffered only the above said two injuries. The Discharge Summary shows that the patient was discharged in a stable condition and she was treated conservatively. There is no proximity between the accident and the injuries spoken to by PW.2 other than the aforesaid two injuries. Therefore the Tribunal is fully justified in holding that the evidence of PW.2 regarding disability is not worthy of credence and assessing the permanent physical disability at 10% to the whole body. 12. The Tribunal has notionally assessed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. The accident has occurred in the year 2008. The claimant was aged 50 years. In the absence of proof of actual income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month. Having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh & Others -vs- Rajbir Singh and Others (2013) 9 SCC 54 ), the Tribunal ought to have added 15% of the income towards the future prospects. The multiplier 11 applies. Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of loss of future earning comes to (Rs.4500+675 (15% future prospects)=5175 x 12=Rs.62,100/-.p.a.x 10/100 (10% disability) = 6,210/- x 11 (multiplier) =Rs.68,310/- Reg. Pain and Suffering 13. The claimant has suffered two fractures as aforesaid. The evidence shows that the claimant required to be ambulated with K T brace and she has to wear belt in future also. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.50,000/- for the first fracture and Rs.10,000/- for the second fracture, in all, Rs.60,000/-. That needs to be enhanced accordingly. Re. Loss of earning during the laid up period 14. The Tribunal itself says that the claimant needed 2 to 3 months rest. At that rate, that compensation payable on this head comes to Rs.4,500x3=Rs.13,500/-. Re. Medical Expenses & Loss of future amenities 15. The compensation awarded on the above heads is based on the evidence and therefore that does not call for any interference by this court. Re. Attendant's and Travelling charges 16. The records show that the claimant was treated as indoor patient for 9 days in M. S. Ramaiah Hospital, therefore, minimum of Rs.1000/- per day should have been awarded towards the attendant's charges and travelling expenses. Therefore that has to be enhanced to Rs.9,000/-. 17. Re. Attendant's and Travelling charges 16. The records show that the claimant was treated as indoor patient for 9 days in M. S. Ramaiah Hospital, therefore, minimum of Rs.1000/- per day should have been awarded towards the attendant's charges and travelling expenses. Therefore that has to be enhanced to Rs.9,000/-. 17. For the aforesaid reasons the compensation payable requires to be reassessed as follows:- PARTICULARS Rs. Pain and Suffering 60,000-00 Loss of earning during laid-up period 13,500-00 Loss of future earning capacity 68,310-00 Attendant's charges and travelling expenses 9,000-00 1,50,810-00 Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1,01,100-00 BALANCE 49,710-00 In the result, the appellant is granted enhanced compensation of Rs.49,710/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The insurer/first respondent shall deposit the same before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of this order. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly.