JUDGMENT H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J. - This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned XIV Addl.Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Tribunal'), by judgment and award dated 8.10.2012, passed in MVC No.2482/2011. 2. The summary of the case of the claimant in the Tribunal is that on 11.3.2011, at about 6.00 p.m., when he was riding his Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-EC-2770, on Hegganahalli-Kundana Road, near Sunrise Farm, towards Bettenahalli, a car bearing registration No.KA-04-B-4367 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and dashed to the claimant's vehicle, due to which road traffic accident, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The Scooter which he was riding also got completely damaged. It is the further case of the claimant that he was taken to Deeksha Hospital, Yelahanka, Bangalore, and after first-aid treatment there, he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru, for further treatment. The claimant says that he had spent Rs.1 lakh towards medical expenses. He alleges that the road traffic accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. In that connection, a police complaint was also lodged with the Vishwanathapura Traffic Police in Crime No.22/2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. The claimant has stated that due to injuries, he has suffered permanent disability and is unable to eke out his livelihood. The claimant has further stated that his income at Rs.15,000/- per month as a Mason has totally come to a halt. With this, he has claimed for a compensation of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. 3. After analysing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them: 1 Pain and suffering Rs.40,000-00 2 For medical expenses and other incidental charges Rs.22,000-00 3 Loss of amenities and future discomfort Rs.10,000-00 4 Loss of earning during the treatment Rs.10,000-00 5 Loss of future earning capacity due to disability Rs.1,00,800-00 6 Future medical expenses Rs.5,000-00 Total Rs.1,87,800-00 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal. 4. 4. The appellant/claimant in his memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are all meager. Further stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by him, has prayed for allowing the appeal. 5. Though this appeal is coming on for admission, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant is physically present before the Court and submitted his arguments. Learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company is appearing through Video Conference and he also submitted his arguments. 7. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant in his arguments submitted that even as per Lok Adalat, the notional income for a Mason at the relevant point of time is Rs.6,500/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has committed an error by fixing the income of the injured only at Rs.4,000/- per month, as such, the same requires enhancement. He also stated that the Tribunal has analysed the fact that the claimant has sustained multiple compound fractures to both his limbs and was totally disabled to pursue his avocation as a Mason. As such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads are very meager and deserves enhancement. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company in his arguments submitted that the doctor who deposed for the claimant is admittedly not a treating doctor, as such, his evidence does not carry any weightage. He further submitted that the Tribunal after considering the entire circumstances of the case has awarded a reasonable compensation, as such, the interference at the hands of this Court is not warranted. 10. The present appeal being the claimant's appeal and the respondents having not preferred either cross-objection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of accident on the date, time and place as alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore, the question of occurrence of accident and the alleged liability of the respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident need not be re-analysed again. Therefore, the question of occurrence of accident and the alleged liability of the respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident need not be re-analysed again. The only question that remains to be considered is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The claimant got himself examined as PW-1 and got examined three more witnesses from PW-2 to PW-4, including the doctor as PW-3. All of them have deposed in favour of the claimant. Admittedly, the respondents have not led their evidence. 12. The evidence of PW-1 and the doctor as PW-3, coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P-4, Discharge Summary of Deeksha Hospital at Ex.P-5 and of Bowring Hospital at Ex.P-6, two OPD cards at Exs.P-7 and P-8, the copy of the case sheet at Exs.P-12 and P-15, X-rays and the OPD cards at Exs.P-13, P-14 and P-16, clearly go to show that in the alleged accident, the claimant/ appellant has sustained three major fractures, they being the compound type II fracture of right femur, fracture of both bones of left leg lower 1/3 and fracture of right knee. The case sheet discloses that the claimant was admitted to hospital on 13.3.2011 and was discharged on 12.4.2011. The medical evidence of the doctor would also go to show that the fractures are compound fractures in their nature and the doctor as on the date of his evidence has spoken about the alleged non-union of those fractures. Though the Tribunal has appreciated these aspects in the evidence, but, was confined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. I am of the view that, considering the nature of injuries, more particularly, the multiple fractures to both the lower limbs, as well as fracture of right knee, the compensation awarded towards 'pain and suffering' requires a reasonable enhancement. As such, I prefer enhancing the quantum of compensation by a sum of Rs.30,000/-, making it to a sum of Rs.70,000/-. 13. The compensation awarded towards 'medical expenses and other incidental charges' being on actuals after considering twentyfour medical bills and fifteen prescriptions produced by the claimant at Exs.P-9 and P-10 respectively and also considering the incidental expenses, the said amount of Rs.22,000/- does not deserve any enhancement, as such, I retain the same. 14. 13. The compensation awarded towards 'medical expenses and other incidental charges' being on actuals after considering twentyfour medical bills and fifteen prescriptions produced by the claimant at Exs.P-9 and P-10 respectively and also considering the incidental expenses, the said amount of Rs.22,000/- does not deserve any enhancement, as such, I retain the same. 14. Towards 'loss of amenities and future discomfort', the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The proven fact shows that the claimant was Mason in his avocation and it is also established that in the accident in question, he has sustained multiple fractures to both his lower limbs. Thus, the gravity of discomfort and loss of amenities is a bit higher than what the Tribunal has assessed. As such, under the said heading, I enhance the compensation by another sum of Rs.15,000/-, making it to a sum of Rs.25,000/- in total. 15. Towards 'loss of future earning capacity due to disability', the Tribunal after considering the age of the claimant, has come to a right multiplier at 14'. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of PW-3, the doctor, and the medical records, has assessed the percentage of disability at 15%. Learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments submitted that, even according to the doctor, the disability to the lower limb was 59.4% and to the whole body is 30%. In several of the cases, this Court, as well the Apex Court have considered the disability for calculating the compensation at not less than 25% to 40%, as such, he prays for taking the percentage of disability of not less than 25% in the instant case. While opposing the said argument, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company in his argument has submitted that when the very same doctor has assessed the percentage of disability to the whole body at 30%, the calculation shows that one-third of which comes to 10%, which alone must have been considered as the percentage of disability to the whole body. After hearing both side and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the fact that the claimant was Mason in his avocation, as such, his avocation requires a strong and healthy limbs for functioning, I am of the view that, percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference as the same appears to be a reasonable percentage which has been taken. However, as observed above, the Tribunal has not considered the notional income of the claimant appropriately. Thus, as observed above, when the claimant's monthly income if taken at Rs.6,500/-, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of future earning capacity due to disability' would come at Rs.78,000 x 14 x 15% = Rs.1,63,800/-. Since the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,00,800/-, I propose enhancement by a sum of Rs.63,000/- under the said head, bringing it to a sum of Rs.1,63,800 in total. 16. Towards 'loss of earning during the treatment', the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Since the claimant has suffered multiple fractures to both his lower limbs and also fracture to his right knee, he would have been suggested bed rest for not less than a period of four months. As such, by taking the monthly income at Rs.6,500/- for a period of four months, the compensation under the said head is enhanced by a sum of Rs.16,000/-, making it to a sum of Rs.26,000/-. 17. Further, the medical evidence go to show that the patient was advised with a long bed rest. In that circumstances, the claimant was required to be attended by an attendant. The Tribunal has not considered the said aspect, as such, it has not considered granting compensation towards the 'attendant charges'. Thus, for a period of 120 days, at the rate of Rs.100/- per day, I award a compensation for a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards 'attendant charges'. 18. Towards 'future medical expenses', the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The doctor has suggested for correction surgery. As such, even according to the medical evidence, the treatment has not ceased and the claimant is required to undergo two more surgeries anticipating the full recovery of his injured portion of the body. Thus, the compensation awarded towards 'future medical expenses' since shows to be very much on the lower side, I propose to enhance the same by an additional amount of Rs.15,000/-, thus, making it to a total of Rs.20,000/-. 19. Barring the above, the claimant/appellant is not entitled for compensation under any other heads or for enhancement of compensation under any other heads. Thus, in total, he is entitled for enhancement of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,51,000/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER The Appeal is allowed in part. 19. Barring the above, the claimant/appellant is not entitled for compensation under any other heads or for enhancement of compensation under any other heads. Thus, in total, he is entitled for enhancement of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,51,000/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER The Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 8.10.2012, passed by the learned XIV Addl.Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (SCCH- 10), in MVC.No.2482/2011, is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at Rs.1,87,800/- is enhanced by a sum of Rs.1,51,000/-, thus, fixing the total compensation at Rs.3,38,800/- (Rupees Three lakhs thirtyeight thousand eight hundred only). The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents and directing the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded shall remain unaltered. Draw modified award accordingly.