JUDGMENT : CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J. 1. Heard Sri. Prakasha H.C. learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri. D. Vijaya Kumar learned counsel who is representing respondent No. 3. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kadur, in MVC No. 294/2018, dated 02.03.2021. 3. This is a claimant's appeal. As against the claim for Rs.25,00,000/- in total, the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.4,97,732/- as compensation and dissatisfied with the same, the claimant is before this Court. The nature of injuries sustained by the appellant is not in dispute. By the evidence brought on record more particularly through Ex.P5 wound certificate and through the evidence of CW1, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained type B open fracture distal 3rd of right femur, and injury over right thumb. The said injuries are noted as laceration over right knee, exposure of right knee and fracture of right supra condyle femur in Ex.P5 wound certificate. Also it is not in dispute that the appellant was admitted at the hospital on 21.05.2017 and was discharged on 13.06.2017. CW1, who spoke about the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and their impact, said that the disability in respect of right leg is 55% which is permanent in nature. However, the Tribunal assessing the evidence of CW1, came to a conclusion that the disability in respect of whole body would be 18%. Though learned counsel Sri. Prakasha H.C. submits that the Tribunal has not assessed disability properly, yet, having considered the nature of the injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal needs no interference. 4. Coming to the income of the appellant by the date of accident, as per his version, by doing coolie work he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no substantive proof is produced before the Tribunal in respect of his occupation and income. The Tribunal took the national income of the appellant therefore as Rs.9,000/- per month. Sri. Prakash H.C. learned counsel submits that the said assessment is wrong. Learned counsel contends that even the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking Notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month for the relevant period i.e. 2017. Learned counsel Sri. The Tribunal took the national income of the appellant therefore as Rs.9,000/- per month. Sri. Prakash H.C. learned counsel submits that the said assessment is wrong. Learned counsel contends that even the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking Notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month for the relevant period i.e. 2017. Learned counsel Sri. D. Vijaya Kumar did not raise any objection for taking the said figure into consideration for assessment of compensation under the head loss of future earnings due to permanent disability. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 22 years by the date of accident. Thus the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma's case is ‘18’. 6. Coming to the aspect of adding future prospects, learned counsel Sri. D. Vijayakumar submits that as this is not a case of death or excessive permanent physical disability, future prospects need not be added. However, this Court is of the view that to the extent of disability, the appellant will not be in a position to perform his duties. When a hale and healthy person would be earning certain amount, the person with permanent disability would not be earning the same amount for the same work as his abilities to do that work would be reduced to the extent of permanent physical disability. This will apply even when there is a hike in payment of wages or salary. Therefore, this Court is of the view that future prospects are required to be added even in injury cases. This view of mine is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Md. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022). Therefore, this Court is of the view that future prospects are required to be added even in injuries cases. 7. Taking notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month, adding 40% of the said income towards future prospects, applying appropriate multiplier ‘18’ and taking the permanent physical disability as 18%, the loss of future earnings due to permanent physical disability, if calculated will be as under: Description Amount In Rs. 7. Taking notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month, adding 40% of the said income towards future prospects, applying appropriate multiplier ‘18’ and taking the permanent physical disability as 18%, the loss of future earnings due to permanent physical disability, if calculated will be as under: Description Amount In Rs. Notional Income per month 11,000-00 Annual Income (11,000 x 12) 1,32,000-00 Add 40% towards future prospects (1,32,000 + 40%) 1,84,800-00 Applying appropriate multiplier ‘18’ 33,26,400-00 18% being permanent physical disability loss of earnings 5,98,752-00 8. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have been in a position to attend his normal pursuits atleast for a period of 5 months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.55,000/-. Also a sum of Rs.20,000/- is required to be awarded for loss of amenities in life. Thus, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under different heads will be as under: S. No. Compensation Amount in Rs. 1 Medical expenses 11,612-00 2 Loss of future income due to permanent physical disability 5,98,752-00 3 Loss of income during laid up period 55,000-00 4 Conveyance charges 30,000-00 5 Compensation for pain and suffering 70,000-00 6 Food, nourishment and attendant charges 20,000-00 7 Loss of amenities in life 20,000-00 Total 8,05,364-00 9. In the light of foregoing discussion, the following: ORDER: (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No. 294/2018, dated 02.03.2021 is enhanced from Rs.4,97,732 to Rs.8,05,364/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (iv) The third respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. 10. Time for one week is granted to Sri. D. Vijayakumar to file vakalath.