JUDGMENT N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,05,307/-, is in appeal. 2. Both the factum of the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company is not in dispute. 3. In the accident which occurred on 09.10.2006, as per the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the clamant suffered the following injuries: "1. Equine Valgus deformity of the right leg. 2. Tenderness over right ankle joint. 3. Scar over right hip. 4. Restriction of joint movement right ankle planter-Dorsiflexion" 4. According to the opinion of the Doctor, due to the accident, the claimant had suffered permanent physical disability of 30% of the right lower limb and 40% disability to the whole body. 5. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- and has awarded the following compensation: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000-00 2. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.12,000-00 3. Medical expenses Rs.48,307-00 4. Loss of future earning Nil 5. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000-00 6. Attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment & diet etc Rs.5,000-00 Total Rs.1,05,307-00 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not awarding any sum towards loss of future earning capacity and the Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding meager sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. 7. Learned counsel for Insurance Company, on the other hand, contends that having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 8. I have perused the material on record and also scanned through original records. 9. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 48 years and was stated to be a cooking contractor. Though he claims that he was earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, no credible evidence was adduced to establish the said income. Consequently, the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income to Rs.4,000/-, which in my view, cannot be said to be improper. 10. The Tribunal has however refused to award any compensation towards loss of future earning. The Doctor who has examined has opined that the claimant was finding difficulty to squat on floor and was also finding it difficult in walking on the slope. 10. The Tribunal has however refused to award any compensation towards loss of future earning. The Doctor who has examined has opined that the claimant was finding difficulty to squat on floor and was also finding it difficult in walking on the slope. As per the evidence adduced, the claimant has suffered fracture of neck of right femur and according to the Doctor, this has resulted in a permanent physical disability of 30% to the right lower limb and 40% to the whole body. In my view, having regard to the fact that the claimant was a cooking contractor, his permanent disability to the whole body will have to be taken at 20%. 11. Since the claimant was aged 48 years as on the date of the accident, multiplier of 13' would have to be applied. In view of determination of the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/-, as a result of the permanent disability as stated above, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,24,800/- (Rs.4,000/- X 12 X 13 X 20/100). 12. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was an inpatient for more than 50 days and he suffered a permanent disability of 30% to his right lower limb, in my view, the sum awarded towards pain and suffering requires to be enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was a cooking contractor, it is quite but natural that he would not be able to do all the activities that he was doing earlier, in view of the permanent disability, I am therefore of the view, the sum awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities requires to be increased to Rs.30,000/-. 14. As stated above, the claimant was inpatient for more than 50 days this would have obviously resulted in large sums being spent towards conveyance, attendant charges. The sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal therefore requires to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.48,307/- as medical expenses, the same is based on documentary evidence and the same is not disturbed. 16. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards future medical expenses. In my view, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. 17. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.48,307/- as medical expenses, the same is based on documentary evidence and the same is not disturbed. 16. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards future medical expenses. In my view, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. 17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, which is just and proper and is therefore affirmed. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled for the following: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 50,000 2. Loss of income during treatment period 12,000 3. Medical expenses 48,307 4. Loss of future earning capacity 1,24,800 5. Loss of amenities 30,000 6. Attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment & diet etc 20,000 Total 2,85,107 18. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part.