JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2014 in M.C.O.P.No.157 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court at Attur.) This appeal is taken up for hearing through Video-conferencing. 2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in and by award dated 10.10.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.157 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court at Attur, the claimant has come forward with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. As per the averments made in M.C.O.P.No.157 of 2010, on 30.08.2009, the claimant was riding the Yamaha motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN.27.H.7282 from his residence situated at Kumarapalayam Village to go to Attur. At about 7.30 am, when he was driving the said two wheeler near Attur Housing Board, ahead of Kurinchi bus stop, the driver of a Tractor, mounted with Harvestor bearing Registration No. TN.48.F.1930 belonging to the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and hit the two- wheeler driven by the claimant. In the impact, the claimant sustained bleeding injuries on his left hand, right hand, right side hip, right thigh, left thigh, below the right knee. According to the claimant, he suffered multiple fractures and he was taken for treatment to Government Hospital, Attur. After providing first aid, the claimant was taken to Sri Palani Andavar Memorial Hospital, Salem where he was admitted as an in-patient. After providing treatment for about 10 days, the claimant was discharged from the hospital. However, on 12.11.2009, the claimant was re-admitted in the same hospital where he had underwent a surgery on 13.11.2009 and was discharged on 19.11.2009. Once again, the claimant was admitted on 29.01.2010 in the very same hospital where he underwent a surgery on 30.01.2010 and discharged again on 13.02.2010. According to the claimant, inspite of such treatment, he is still suffering immensely. Due to the accident, he could not pass urine freely and his urinal tract has been ruptured, with the result, he is dribbing the urine. The nature of injuries sustained by him resulted in penile dysfunction, due to which co-habitation in his marital life, had been adversely affected. Due to the accident, he could not pass urine freely and his urinal tract has been ruptured, with the result, he is dribbing the urine. The nature of injuries sustained by him resulted in penile dysfunction, due to which co-habitation in his marital life, had been adversely affected. It was stated in the claim petition that the claimant was working as an agriculturist and he owns land measuring 3.5 acres. Besides agriculture, the claimant also owns a Turmeric cleaning machine and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, due to the multiple fracture, urethra rupture and rectum tear, suffered by the claimant, he could not discharge his normal work and had totally lost his capacity to earn money. According to the claimant, the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor, which is insured with the second respondent/insurer. Therefore, the claimant has filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation. 4. The claim petition was contested by the second respondent/Insurance Company by filing a counter before the Tribunal. According to the second respondent/Insurance Company, at the time of the accident, the claimant was jobless and he was dependent on others, therefore, the averment that he was doing agricultural activities besides earning Rs.15,000/- per month is false. It was also stated that the claimant alone was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner at the time of the accident and therefore, the driver of the tractor cannot be faulted with. The second respondent also denied the averments made in the claim petition with regard to the period of hospitalisation of the claimant, nature of injuries said to have been suffered by him and the surgeries said to have been performed to him. In effect, it was contended by the second respondent/Insurance Company that the claim petition has been filed without any basis and the amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and Exs. P1 to P23 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, one Perumal/Driver of the Tractor was examined as RW1 and the driving licence in his name was marked as Ex.R2. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and Exs. P1 to P23 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, one Perumal/Driver of the Tractor was examined as RW1 and the driving licence in his name was marked as Ex.R2. 6. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence, rendered a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. The Tribunal also observed that soon after the accident, a first information report was registered against RW1 in Crime No. 1201 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed in S.T.C. No. 1211 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur and during the course of criminal proceedings, RW1 admitted the offence and paid a fine of Rs.1,600/-. Therefore, the Tribunal, on consideration of the above evidence as also the deposition of PW1 and RW1 has concluded that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of RW1 and consequently, the second respondent/insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. 7. For the purpose of awarding compensation to the claimant, the Tribunal, taking note of the medical evidence concluded that the claimant had undergone multiple surgeries and inspite of the same, the damage caused to the urinal tract could not be restored, with the result, he could not naturally pass urine and he requires splinter valve to be inserted to arrest the flow of urine. The Tribunal also observed that the claimant was hospitalised for 78 days and underwent enormous pain and suffering during the course of treatment. The Doctor under Ex.P23 has assessed the disability of the claimant at 30% for gross mal-union of pelvic bone, loss of physical function and physical impairment and another 30% disability for incontinence of Urine, Urinary infection and erectile dysfunction. Thus, taking the total disability of the claimant at 60%, the period of hospitalisation and the number of surgeries underwent, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.12,41,579/- under various heads, which includes Rs.3 lakhs for loss of earning capacity and Rs.6,64,879/- for medical expenses, based on medical bills. 8. Thus, taking the total disability of the claimant at 60%, the period of hospitalisation and the number of surgeries underwent, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.12,41,579/- under various heads, which includes Rs.3 lakhs for loss of earning capacity and Rs.6,64,879/- for medical expenses, based on medical bills. 8. Aggrieved by the amount of Rs.12,41,579/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has not come with any appeal against the award of the Tribunal. 9. Pending appeal, the appellant/claimant has filed CMP No. 12018 of 2018 in CMA.SR.No. 52670 of 2018 seeking to permit him to enhance the compensation amount claimed in the claim petition from Rs.20 lakh to Rs.30 lakhs and it was allowed by this Court on 17.07.2018. Yet another petition in CMP.No.13708 of 2018 in CMA SR No. 52670 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant/claimant to permit him to pay Rs.375/ as court fee instead of Rs.26,375/- and exempt him from payment of Rs.26,000/- as balance court fee till the disposal of the appeal and the same was also allowed by this Court on 09.08.2018. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that at the time of accident, the appellant was 30 years old. He was an agriculturist, besides that, he owned a Turmeric cleaning machine and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, his movements are totally restricted and he is dependent on other for his day to day needs. The earning capacity of the appellant/claimant was totally lost and he could not earn through physical labour. Further, during the course of treatment, he was not in a position to expel the excreta and it was artificially pumped out and discharged through a tube fitted above his hip. Therefore, the appellant/claimant-s wife became very disgusted in taking care of him and she left the matrimonial home. Thus, the matrimonial life of the appellant/claimant was totally shattered due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant invited the attention of this Court to the various documents and submitted that the claimant has to undergo treatment throughout his life time and thus, the disability suffered by the claimant is nothing but a functional disability, which had eroded his normal and peaceful life. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant invited the attention of this Court to the various documents and submitted that the claimant has to undergo treatment throughout his life time and thus, the disability suffered by the claimant is nothing but a functional disability, which had eroded his normal and peaceful life. The disability suffered by the claimant is permanent and it will continue till his life time without any way out for cure. For the purpose of passing out urine, the claimant has to wear a penile clip for the rest of his life, otherwise, he has to suffer urinary dribbing. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of earning capacity by applying multiplier method, instead of awarding a consolidated sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Further, the Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of amenities as well as loss of marital life to the appellant/claimant and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be enhanced suitably. 11. In order to buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary vs. E. Srinivas and another, reported in 2013 (12) Supreme Court Cases 455, wherein in an identical case, the Supreme Court, considering the plight of a 19-year old road accident victim, who was assisting his father in his agricultural activities prior to the accident, had awarded a sum of Rs.6 lakhs for future medical expenses and other amounts under various other heads. In that case also, the claimant therein suffered pelvic fracture and traumatic stricture of the Uthera. The Supreme Court had taken note of the fact the nature and magnitude of the injuries the claimant suffered and by referring to various other decisions of the Supreme Court, observed as follows:- “13. In Ibrahim Vs. Raju ( (2011) 10 SCC 634 : 2012 (3) SCC (Civ) 1053 : 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 120), this Court took cognisance of the plight of the victims of road accidents and observed (SCC pp.636-37, para 8): “8. ... The sufferings of the dependants of those who are killed in motor accidents and the survivors who are disabled are manifold. Sometime these can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. ... The sufferings of the dependants of those who are killed in motor accidents and the survivors who are disabled are manifold. Sometime these can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is disabled as a result of road accident, the cost of treatment, care and rehabilitation is likely to be very high. ...” 14. The Court also referred to the judgments in Ward Vs. James ( 1966 (1) QB 273 : 1965 (2) WLR 455 : 1965 (1) All.E.R. 568 (CA), R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. ( 1995 (1) SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250), Nizam-s Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S.Dhanaka ( 2009 (6) SCC 1 : 2009 (2) SCC (Civ) 688, Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan ( 2009 (13) SCC 422 : 2009 (5) SCC (Civ) 143 : 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 1044, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( 2010 (10) SCC 254 : 2010 (4) SCC (Civ) 153 : 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 1258, Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar ( 2011 (1) SCC 343 : 2011 (1) SCC (Civ) 164 : 2011 (1) SCC (Cri) 1161 and enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,89,440 to Rs.6 lakhs. The factual matrix of that case and the factors considered by this Court for awarding enhanced compensation to the appellant in that case are contained in paras 17-20 of the judgment, which are reproduced below: (Ibrahim case (In Ibrahim Vs. Raju ( (2011) 10 SCC 634 : 2012 (3) SCC (Civ) 1053 : 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 120)): (SCC pp.641-42) “17. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant had produced substantive evidence to prove that as a result of the accident he had suffered 8 grievous injuries including fracture of pelvis and he had to remain in the hospital for one month and a half; that he was treated by Dr. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Professor, Orthopaedics and Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor of Urology and that on account of grievous injuries he was unable to continue his studies. In his deposition Dr. Joseph Thomas categorically stated that the appellant will have to undertake life-long treatment for recurrence of urethral strictures and consequential dysfunction due to fracture of pelvis. Anil K. Bhat, Assistant Professor, Orthopaedics and Dr. Joseph Thomas, Professor of Urology and that on account of grievous injuries he was unable to continue his studies. In his deposition Dr. Joseph Thomas categorically stated that the appellant will have to undertake life-long treatment for recurrence of urethral strictures and consequential dysfunction due to fracture of pelvis. Unfortunately, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court adverted to this part of the evidence and omitted to award compensation for the expenses likely to be incurred by the appellant for future treatment. .... .... 19. On account of the injuries suffered by him, the prospects of the appellants marriage have considerably reduced. Rather, they are extremely bleak. In any case, on account of the fracture of pelvis, he will not be able to enjoy the matrimonial life. Therefore, the award of Rs.50,000/- under this head must be treated as wholly inadequate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs should be awarded to the appellant for loss of marriage prospects and enjoyment of life. .... ... ...” 16. In Kavita Vs. Deepak ( 2012 (8) SCC 604 : 2012 (4) SCC (Civ) 558 : 2012 (3) SCC (Cri) 997 : 2012 (2) SCC (L & S) 711) the Court referred to earlier precedents and held: (SCC p.613, para 19): “19. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.” .. .. 23. In our view, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,20,000/- towards the expenses incurred in the treatment including hospitalisation expenses, mess and lodging charges, transportation etc. For future medical expenses including hospitalisation, medicines, attendant charges etc., the appellant is entitled to Rs.6 lakhs. .. 23. In our view, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,20,000/- towards the expenses incurred in the treatment including hospitalisation expenses, mess and lodging charges, transportation etc. For future medical expenses including hospitalisation, medicines, attendant charges etc., the appellant is entitled to Rs.6 lakhs. For pain, suffering and trauma, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. For loss of amenities and prospects of marriage, the appellant is entitled to Rs.4 lakhs. For loss of expectation of life and loss of future earning, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment (G.Ravindranath Vs. E.Srinivas, MFA.No.2478 of 2004, order dated 17.01.2012 (KAR) ) is set aside and it is held that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.20,20,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs twenty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. .. .. .” 12. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 3126 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019. In that case, the third respondent was walking on the road on 27.03.2009 at Kamarajar Salai near Vivekananda Illam at about 9.30 pm. At that time, an Electric Lamp Post fell on him when the employees of the Corporation were engaged in removing the old lamp post by welding it. The Writ Court awarded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation against which the Corporation has filed the Writ Appeal by contending that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs was excessive. The Division Bench, in the appeal filed by the Corporation, suo motu enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.63,26,000/- under various heads including loss of marital prospects, future medical expenses, etc. By pointing out the above decision, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for enhancing the compensation amount by adopting multiplier method taking note of the nature and magnitude of the injuries sustained by the claimant. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance company vehemently opposed the appeal filed by the appellant by contending that absolutely, there is no medical evidence or any direct evidence to prove that the appellant had suffered any loss of marital life. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance company vehemently opposed the appeal filed by the appellant by contending that absolutely, there is no medical evidence or any direct evidence to prove that the appellant had suffered any loss of marital life. The Tribunal itself has awarded sufficient and reasonable amount as compensation in favour of the claimant which includes Rs.2 lakh for future surgery to stop dripping of urination, Rs.1 lakhs for pain and suffering, Rs.1,20,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.3 lakhs for future loss of earning capacity. The amount awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, is fair and reasonable especially when the claimant claimed only a sum of Rs.20 lakhs before the Tribunal as against which the sum of Rs.12,41,579/- with interest was awarded. While so, before this Court, the claimant enhanced the claim of compensation from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.30 lakhs without any basis. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent further contended that PW2, Doctor, had assessed the disability of the claimant at 60%, however, in the disability certificate, there was no indication about the claimant suffering functional disability. Further, when there is nothing on record to show that the disability suffered by the claimant is functional disability, there is no need to award compensation under multiplier method. In effect, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent that even the sum of Rs.1 lakh awarded towards pain and suffering is excessive for the 78 days of hospitalisation of the claimant. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would further contend that prior to the date of accident, the appellant was jobless and therefore, the compensation amount payable to the appellant must be on the basis of the actual loss of earning. In this case, the appellant has not produced any documentary proof to substantiate his actual loss of earning. Notwithstanding the same, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards permanent disability and another sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards loss of future earning power and the award of those amount itself is without any basis. In such circumstances, enhancing the compensation amount by adopting multiplier method, as contended by the counsel for the appellant, is not warranted. While so, the learned counsel for the second respondent prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 16. In such circumstances, enhancing the compensation amount by adopting multiplier method, as contended by the counsel for the appellant, is not warranted. While so, the learned counsel for the second respondent prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurance company. 17. On the fateful day of the accident namely 30.08.2009, the appellant, who was aged 30 years, had sustained multiple fracture injuries and had undergone repeated surgeries. Even at the time of filing the claim petition, the claimant had spelt out the nature of injuries he sustained in the accident and therefore useful reference can be made to the relevant averments made in the claim petition:- “(b) The petitioner was thrown out from the motor cycle and he fell down on the road and the left front wheel of the LMV Tractor mounted with Harvestor ran over the hip of the petitioner. The petitioner sustained bleeding injuries at (1) Left hand (2) Right hand (3) Right side hip (4) Right thigh (5) Left thigh (6) Below the right knee and he sustained grievous injuries at (1) Multiple displaced fractures at ala of sacral vertebra and lower sacrum and adjacent araticular margins anterior piller of acctabular cavity (2) Right superior pubic ramus fracture (3) Sub interior public rami with adjacent pelvic fracture (4) Ileo posas and right lateral abdominal muscular hamatima (5) Minimal hamoperitorieum seen (6) Bladder is collapsed and appear irregular with large hematomas (7) Rupture of urethra (8) Rectum tear. The motor cycle also sustained severe damages. (c) Immediately after the accident the petitioner was taken to the Government Hospital, Attur through the 108 ambulance. After the first aid treatment given by the doctors, he was referred to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem. But he was taken to Sri Palani Andi Mudaliyar Memorial Hospital, Salem and he was admitted as an inpatient. On 30.08.2019, the petitioner underwent Exploratory Laprotomy roading of total rupture urethra and repair of bladder tear done. After laprotomy, fracture superior pubic rami and inferior pubic rami are found grossly communited interior public rami palaple through P.R. examination through the rectal tear. Open reduction and internal fixation done. On 02.09.2009 I and D over right thigh and the same day colostomy done. On 09.10.2009, the petitioner was discharged from the hospital. After laprotomy, fracture superior pubic rami and inferior pubic rami are found grossly communited interior public rami palaple through P.R. examination through the rectal tear. Open reduction and internal fixation done. On 02.09.2009 I and D over right thigh and the same day colostomy done. On 09.10.2009, the petitioner was discharged from the hospital. (d) On 12.11.2009, the petitioner was admitted in the above SPMM hospital, Salem and he was under one operation on 13.11.2009 and external fixator removed and he was discharged on 19.11.2009. On 29.01.2010 the petitioner was re-admitted in the above SPMM Hospital, Salem and he underwent one operation on 30.01.2010 colonous copy done. On 02.02.2010 under Spine Anaesthesisa colostomy closure done and he was discharged on 13.02.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was taking treatment as an out patient. Now the petitioner underwent the complaints of dripping of urine. Due to the above complaints, the Urologist advised to continue CIC and penile clamp application. Now he wants to undergo for the operation for the drippline of urine at Vedharanyam Hospital, Coimbatore.” 18. The plea of the claimant in the claim petition, which was filed on 03.12.2010, itself would indicate that he was periodically admitted in the hospital and had underwent multiple surgeries for the various injuries he suffered in the accident. Further, the claimant was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. He, in his deposition, has deposed about the magnitude of the injuries, to which he was subjected to by reason of the accident and useful reference can be made to the same. “TAMIL” 19. The deposition of PW1 would indicate that during the course of hospitalisation, due to the tear of his rectum, he could not discharge faeces naturally. Therefore, the discharge hole in his rectum was closed temporarily during which period, his faeces was artificially pumped and discharged through a discharge pipe fixed above his hip atleast for a period of 41 days. Similarly, the urinal tract or bladder of the claimant had been damaged, due to which, he was dribbing urine or he could not naturally pass out urine. For the purpose of arresting the dribbing of urine, a clip was artificially clamped to his penis, which has resulted in erectile dysfunction. Similarly, the urinal tract or bladder of the claimant had been damaged, due to which, he was dribbing urine or he could not naturally pass out urine. For the purpose of arresting the dribbing of urine, a clip was artificially clamped to his penis, which has resulted in erectile dysfunction. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the appellant/claimant requires continued treatment for the rest of his life, for which, adequate amount has to be awarded to enable him to take periodical treatment. 20. Before the Tribunal, the claimant produced Exs. P1, P7, P8, P9, P10 and P11, Discharge Summaries issued by the hospital, which would stand testimony to the fact that the claimant had undergone treatment in the hospital in various spells. According to the claimant, during the period of his hospitalisation for 78 days, he had undergone multiple surgeries for the various injuries he had suffered in the accident. The Doctor, who issued the Disability Certificate under Ex.P23 had assessed the disability of the claimant at 60% - 30% for gross mal-union of pelvic bone, loss of physical function and physical impairment and another 30% towards Incontinence of Urine, Urinary infection and erectile dys-function. As per the medical records, the disability suffered by the claimant include dripping of urine, mal-union of pelvic bone and damage suffered to urethra due to which the appellant has to take continued treatment in future. Further, the injuries of this nature has deprived the claimant from taking up any employment or to engage in physical labour. Therefore, it is clear that the disability suffered by the claimant has to be treated as functional disability. It is also glaringly evident that the earning capacity of the claimant is totally lost and he will not be in a position to earn, as before. Having regard to the nature and magnitude of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the multiple surgeries underwent, the period of hospitalisation and the disability assessed by the Doctor under Ex.P23 and the need for incurring expenses for future medical treatment, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be re-visited and/or modified by enhancing the same by adopting multiplier method. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company vehemently opposed to enhance the compensation by resorting to multiplier method. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company vehemently opposed to enhance the compensation by resorting to multiplier method. Such a submission of the counsel for the second respondent cannot be countenanced. At the outset, the learned counsel for the second respondent vociferously contended that the disability suffered by the claimant is not such that it warrant adopting multiplier method to enhance the compensation amount. He also contended that the amount awarded under various heads by the Tribunal itself is excessive. However, it must be observed that the second respondent/Insurance Company has not filed any appeal questioning the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company also did not let in any contra evidence to show that the averments made by the appellant are untrue. In such circumstances, the second respondent/insurance Company cannot be heard to contend that this is a case where enhancing the compensation amount is not warranted. On the other hand, the injuries sustained by the appellant is such that it warrant enhancing the compensation amount by adopting multiplier method. Thus, we are of the view that this is a fit case to enhance the compensation amount by adopting multiplier method. Consequently, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company is hereby rejected. 22. According to the claimant, he was an agriculturist, besides, he owned a turmeric cleaning machine and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Of course, there was no documentary evidence produced by the claimant to substantiate the same. The Tribunal had taken a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as notional income of the claimant, which in our opinion, is very low. The claimant, who was 30 years aged at the time of accident in the year 2009 would have atleast earned a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month. Therefore, fixing a sum of Rs.6,500/- notionally will be a fair and reasonable assessment. Taking note of the age of the claimant at the time of accident, being 30, we feel 40% amount can be added towards future prospects. If this is worked out, a sum of Rs.2,600/- (Rs.6500 X 40/100) can be added to Rs.6,500/- taking the total to Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500/- + Rs.2,600). By applying multiplier -17- the total amount of loss of income could be worked out to Rs.18,56,400/-. For 60% of disability assessed by the Doctor, the total loss of income can safely be determined at Rs11,13,840/-. By applying multiplier -17- the total amount of loss of income could be worked out to Rs.18,56,400/-. For 60% of disability assessed by the Doctor, the total loss of income can safely be determined at Rs11,13,840/-. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.3 lakhs awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.11,13,840/- towards loss of future earning capacity. 23. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,20,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.6,64,879/- towards medical reimbursement and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. We see no reason to interfere with the award of amount under these heads. 24. At the same time, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Extra Nourishment. Having regard to the multiple number of surgeries underwent by the claimant and the period of his hospitalisation, we enhance the amount under this head to Rs.25,000/-. 25. Similarly, for pain and suffering and Attendant Charges, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. Here again, taking into account the nature of injuries, the difficulty experienced by the claimant to discharge faeces naturally but through artificial pipe as also passing of urine, we feel that awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges would be proper. 26. The Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of amenities and loss of marital life. The appellant suffered erectile dysfunction which resulted in loss of marital bliss. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of marital life, which would meet the ends of justice. 27. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.12,41,579/- to Rs.24,78,719/- as tabulated below:- Permanent disability Rs. 1,20,000.00 Loss of future earning capacity Rs.11,13,840.00 Medical expenses Rs. 6,64,879.00 Transportation Rs. 20,000.00 Extra Nourishment Rs. 25,000.00 Pain and Suffering Rs. 2,00.000.00 Attender Charges Rs. 25,000.00 Damage of cloth and articles Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000.00 Loss of marital life Rs. 2,00,000.00 Total compensation Rs.24,78,719.00 28. In the result, the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 157 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court at Attur is modified as mentioned above. This appeal is partly allowed. No costs. 10,000.00 Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000.00 Loss of marital life Rs. 2,00,000.00 Total compensation Rs.24,78,719.00 28. In the result, the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 157 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court at Attur is modified as mentioned above. This appeal is partly allowed. No costs. The second respondent/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, which we have determined in this appeal, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.157 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court at Attur, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, with accrued interest, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the claimant shall withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest. The claimant is also hereby directed to pay necessary Court fee, if any, for the enhanced compensation amount.