JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/injured, Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.2, and perused the record. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-injured aggrieved by the order and decree, dt. 31.12.2021, passed in MVOP No.443 of 2016 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 3. The Tribunal after elaborate enquiry and trial, has passed an award and decree granting compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- under various heads. The appellant/injured dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs.53,18,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured submitted that the appellant is an Advocate by profession with 15 years of standing at the Bar Association of High Court for the State of Telangana as on the date of accident, and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the appellant @ Rs.30,000/- p.m. Further, the Tribunal ought to have considered the disability @ 35-40% as per Ex.A6 disability certificate issued by an Orthopedic Surgeon and the evidence of PW3-Doctor, who treated the appellant/injured. Further, the Tribunal also ought to have considered future prospects @ 25% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal also erred in not granting any amount towards future medical expenditure and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under the said count is to be awarded. 5. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that as the appellant cannot drive in view of the knee fracture, the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.13,00,000/- towards attendant/bystander/driver charges for 13 years as per the applicable multiplier. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-submitted that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in right perspective and awarded the amount, which is just and proper and interference of this Court is not warranted. 7. In view of the findings of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the liability being fixed on respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally, the only point needs to be determined is “whether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhancement.” 8. 7. In view of the findings of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the liability being fixed on respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally, the only point needs to be determined is “whether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhancement.” 8. As per Ex.A10 i.e., income tax returns for the year 2015-16, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.3,73,670/-. Considering his professional standing of 15 years as on the date of accident, this Court feels it just and reasonable to fix his monthly income at Rs. 25,000/-. Further, the Tribunal having fixed the disability @ 20%, erred in not granting future prospects, as the disability sustained by the appellant certainly affects his ability to efficiently serve his clients and move comfortably between Courts, and thereby potentially impacts his income and professional responsibilities. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 as the appellant/injured was aged about 46 years, future prospects of the appellant on account of disability is fixed at 25%. Thus, the net monthly income of the appellant with future prospects comes to Rs.31,250/- (Rs.25,000 + Rs.6,250/-). As the appellant was aged 46 years, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘13’ in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and thus, applying the multiplier ‘13’, the total earnings of the appellant comes to Rs.48,75,000/- (Rs.31,250X 12 X 13). 9. Further, the Tribunal considering Ex.A6 Disability Certificate and the oral testimony of PW3 doctor, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon and who has treated the appellant, has rightly held that the petitioner had suffered disability, but erred in fixing the disability at 20%, in spite of Ex.A6 and the evidence of PW3-Doctor, that the partial permanent disability sustained by the petitioner was assessed at 35-40%. As the appellant being an Advocate practicing in High Court has to move around the Courts daily, and due to the disability suffered by him, he will be facing lot of hardship and as such, the Tribunal erred in fixing the disability @ 20% and this Court feels it is just and reasonable to fix the disability @ 30%, and thus, the compensation towards physical disability comes to Rs.14,62,500/- (Rs.48,75,000/- X 30%). 10. Further, towards loss of earnings for the period of 24 months as rightly considered by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.25,000/- X 24 months). 11. The Tribunal rightly granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferance, Rs.3,82,000/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, Rs.24,000/- towards extra nourishment, and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of pleasures and amenities in life, which in the considered view of this Court, just and reasonable, and needs no interference. 12. However, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards attendant charges. Hence, in view of the fracture injury sustained by the appellant and the prolonged hospitalization and restricted mobility, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- towards attendant charges. 13. Further, the findings of the Tribunal in rejecting the appellant’s claim towards future medical expenditure, warrants no interference, in view of the categorically evidence of PW3-Doctor, who has stated in his cross-examination, that the appellant/injured does not require further surgery. 14. With regard to the rate of interest, though the Tribunal awarded interest at 7% per annum, this Court, in order to maintain uniformity and parity, considers it just and reasonable to enhance the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum. 15. In view of the above, the total compensation, to which the appellant/claimant is entitled, is recalculated as under: S. No. Head Amount 1 Income Rs.25,000/- per month 2 Future prospects Rs.6,250/- (Rs.25,000 X 25%) 3 Annual income (Rs.3,75,000/- Rs.31,250/- X 12) 4 Multiplier ‘13’ 5 Physical Disability 30% 6 Amount towards Physical Disability Rs.14,62,500/- (Rs.3,75,000 X 13 X 30%) 7 Treatment expenses Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.25,000/- X 24 months) 8 Pain & Suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 9 Transportation Rs.20,000/- 10 Extra Nourishment Rs.24,000/- 11 Loss of Pleasures & Amenities in life Rs.20,000/- 12 Attendant Charges Rs.30,000/- Total compensation: Rs.22,56,500/- 16. Accordingly, the appeal is PARTLY allowed modifying the Award by enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,50,000/- to Rs.22,56,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is PARTLY allowed modifying the Award by enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,50,000/- to Rs.22,56,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 17. In view of the appeal preferred by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation, the default condition imposed by the Tribunal directing the 2nd respondent to deposit the compensation with interest within 60 days from the date of award is hereby modified. The 2 nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization, within 60 days from the date of this judgment. In the event of failure to deposit the amount within the said time period, the 2 nd respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the compensation amount from the date of this judgment till realization. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.