JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by the claimant lays a challenge to the judgment and award dated 02.11.2009 made by the MACT, Mysore allowing M.V.C. No.2016/2008 whereby a compensation of Rs.4,90,683/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum subject to a usual condition of bank deposit, has been awarded. The challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. The brief facts stated are: in a vehicular accident that happened on 04.11.2007 because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 04 MC 8418, the claimant sustained multiple injuries some of them being grievous. His claim petition in M.V.C.No.2016/2008 was stoutly resisted by the insurer by filing Written Statement. 3. To prove the claim, the claimant was examined as PW1; Dr.Prasanna, who had treated the injuries of the claimant was examined as PW3 and one Sri.Kodlu Ramakrishna under whom the claimant was working as Assistant Director of a feature film was examined as PW2. In their evidence, twenty one documents came to be marked as per Exhibits P1 to P21, which amongst other, comprised of medical records and police papers. From the side of insurer, one Sri. M.S.Beig, its official, was examined as RW1 and in his evidence, a copy of insurance policy came to be marked as per Ex.R1. 4. The MACT after looking to the pleadings of the parties and after appreciating the evidentiary material on record, has entered the impugned judgment and award. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the award of compensation is too much on the lower side inasmuch as the medical disability leading to occupational disability has not been properly appreciated by the MACT; the compensation awarded under the head ‘Pain and Suffering’ in a sum of Rs.40,000/-is too much on the meager side; the MACT despite the version of PW3medical witness, has not awarded any compensation for future medical treatment; the MACT grossly erred in taking Rs.5,000/as the monthly income of the claimant; similarly, Rs.20,000/-compensation awarded under the head ‘Loss of Amenities’ is too low. Lastly, the MACT ought to have fastened the liability on the respondent-insurer. 6. Percontra, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable; the MACT being a statutory adjudicatory authority has employed it’s accumulated wisdom in recording the findings and therefore, this Court should show due deference to the same. Lastly, the MACT ought to have fastened the liability on the respondent-insurer. 6. Percontra, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable; the MACT being a statutory adjudicatory authority has employed it’s accumulated wisdom in recording the findings and therefore, this Court should show due deference to the same. So, stating he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant at length and the learned counsel for the insurer. I have perused the appeal papers. I have also perused the relevant papers of original LCR. 8. The claimant was an Assistant Director of a Feature Film, has been prima-facie established by his own evidence and also by the deposition of PW2 – the Director of the film. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their crossexamination to discredit this version. Therefore, the MACT is not justified in taking Rs.5,000/-as monthly income of the injured-claimant. Regard being had to the then contemporary income standards and evidentiary material on record, the income ought to have been taken at Rs.6,000/p.m. 9. The claimant has suffered nearly 27% medical disability to the whole of body. He has suffered severe injuries, which are grievous in nature; he was hospitalized for a period of 125 days, which has not been controverted by the other side. That being so, the MACT is not justified in awarding only Rs.40,000/-as compensation under the head ‘Pain and Suffering’. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, the nature of treatment and the longevity of hospitalization, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said sum should be enhanced to Rs.1,10,000/-. 10. The claimant contends that the MACT ought to have assessed the future medical treatment, which was spoken of by Dr.Prasanna, the medical witness – PW3. Now also the claimant has filed another application seeking leave to produce new evidentiary material on record, which was not otherwise available earlier; the same speaks about the medical treatment, which he has taken in the recent past. Keeping all this in view, the MACT ought to have awarded at least Rs.35,000/-as compensation under this head. 11. The contention of the claimant that the MACT has awarded only Rs.20,000/-as compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’, which is meager is established by the evidence on record and more particularly, the deposition of PW3 – the medical witness. Keeping all this in view, the MACT ought to have awarded at least Rs.35,000/-as compensation under this head. 11. The contention of the claimant that the MACT has awarded only Rs.20,000/-as compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’, which is meager is established by the evidence on record and more particularly, the deposition of PW3 – the medical witness. Keeping all the facts and circumstances in view, the compensation of Rs.70,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable. 12. With the above factors, the compensation has been reworked out with the aid of memo of calculation furnished at the Bar, as under: Memo of Calculation Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Pain and Suffering 1,10,000.00 2 Medical expenses 3,04,683.00 3 Loss of income (for a period of 4 months) 20,000.00 4 Loss of Amenities 70,000.00 5 Conveyance 10,000.00 6 Nourishment 7 Attendant Charges 8 Future medical expenses 35,000.00 9 Disability 6000x12x16x10/100 1,15,200.00 Total 6,64,883.00 Enhanced compensation is Rs.1,74,200.00 13. In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment and award are modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,90,683/- to Rs.6,64,883/- and further fastening the liability on the respondent-insurer with interest of 8% p.a.(No interest accrues on Rs.35,000/- awarded for future medical expenses). 14. Learned counsel for the claimant now pleads financial difficulty of the claimant and therefore, he seeks relaxation of the condition as to bank deposit. There is force in his submission and therefore, above condition requiring bank deposit is relaxed, so that entire compensation amount becomes payable at once. Costs made easy.