JUDGMENT : 1. The fact that an accident occurred on 26.09.2011 when the claimant was traveling in a tempo bearing registration No.KA-04-C-6426 resulting in multiple injuries is not in dispute. 2. The Tribunal, on assessing the evidence, came to the conclusion that an accident as stated by the claimant had occurred and the claimants had suffered grievous injuries. In respect of the present appellant, the Tribunal recorded a finding that she had suffered fracture of the right humerus, for which she had undergone a surgery, whereby implants were inserted and as per the doctor, she had suffered disability of 12% to the whole body. 3. The Tribunal, in the absence documentary evidence regarding her income, proceeded to assess her notional income at Rs.4,500/- and by applying the multiplier of 18 and considering the disability at 10%, awarded a sum of Rs.97,200/-. 4. Apart from the said sum, the Tribunal also awarded the following sums: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000.00 2. Medical, conveyance, Attendant and Nourishment expenses Rs.40,000.00 3. Loss of earnings during the period of treatment Rs.18,000.00 4. Loss of future earnings Rs.97,200.00 5. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000.00 6. Loss of amenities and Enjoyment of life Rs.20,000.00 Total Rs.2,45,200.00 In all, a sum of Rs.2,45,200-00 was awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The claimant being dissatisfied with the said award is in appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant was a 20 year old unmarried lady at the time of accident and was engaged in coolie work. He submitted that she had suffered disability of 36% to her right lower limb and by virtue of the said disability to her right lower limb, her employable prospects were diminished to a very large extent and she was virtually unemployable. Therefore, it is submitted that fixation of 10% was completely erroneous. He also submitted that the award towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities and medical expenditure were also on the lower side and the same were also required to be enhanced. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that the sums awarded were adequate and did not justify any enhancement. 8. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel and perused the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the claimant was 20 years old and she suffered a grievous injury which required hospitalization of one month. 8. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel and perused the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the claimant was 20 years old and she suffered a grievous injury which required hospitalization of one month. The Tribunal has accepted the fact that she was unable to employ herself for nearly four months. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was a coolie and taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor who has stated that she had difficulty in lifting weights and placing materials in the same place, the assessment of disability at just 12% would be improper. It has to be kept in mind that a 20 year old lady who had engaged herself in coolie work would suffer a serious consequence due to A physical disability, which had a debilitating effect on her. In my view, having regard to the nature of injury and the medical evidence adduced, it would be just and proper to assess the loss of earning capacity at 25%. 10. The Tribunal has, in the absence of documentary evidence, assessed the notional income at Rs.4,500/-. In my view, instead of adopting a random figure of Rs.4,500/-, it would be prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which would be a sum of Rs.6,500/- since the accident is of the year 2011. 11. 25% of the said sum of Rs.6,500/- would be Rs.1,625/- and since the claimant was aged 20 years, multiplier of 18 would have to be adopted. The claimant would thus be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,625/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.3,51,000/-. 12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. In my view, this sum would also have to be marginally enhanced to Rs.60,000/- since the claimant has been held to be laid up for atleast four months. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. In my view, having regard to the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, this sum requires to be enhanced to Rs.60,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards medical, conveyance, attendant and nourishment expenditure. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. In my view, having regard to the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, this sum requires to be enhanced to Rs.60,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards medical, conveyance, attendant and nourishment expenditure. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was hospitalized for a period of one month and she had laid up for a further period of three months, in my view, the said sum would have to be enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. 15. Since the Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.4,500/-, which has now been modified to Rs.6,500/-, the loss of income during the period of treatment is also required to be enhanced from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.26,000/-. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, the said sum being just and proper is affirmed. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,77,000/-. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,77,000/- as against a sum of Rs.2,45,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 18. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of eight weeks. 19. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount that would be deposited by the Insurance Company.