JUDGMENT : B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J. This appeal is by the claimant in MVC No.2266/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal has allowed appellant's claim petition for compensation in part by the impugned judgment and award dated 26.04.2019 granting a total sum of Rs.24,08,400/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Insurer does not dispute its liability, and in fact, the amount as is awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited. 2. The appellant's claim for compensation is in the following circumstances: 2.1 The appellant, a bachelor who is aged 25 years [as of 08.04.2018] and employed with M/s. AGIES Co. Ltd., has met with an accident while riding his motor-cycle on Varthur Main Road. The accident is with the Tanker bearing No.KA-53/C- 9811. The appellant has alleged that the driver of this Tanker, which is insured with the second respondent was rash and negligent and therefore, the jurisdictional Police registered first information in Crime No.59/2018 against the driver. 2.2 The Owner and the Insurer of the Tanker have contested this claim denying that the driver of the Tanker was rash and negligent. The Tribunal, on examination of the evidence on record [including the Police records], has opined that the appellant was negligent in not noticing the oncoming vehicle [Tanker]. The Tribunal has opined that the appellant has also contributed to the accident and the negligence between the appellant and the driver of the vehicle is in the ratio of 10:90. Though Mr. K T Gurudev Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant, endeavours to interfere with this finding, this is Court is not persuaded. 3. The Tribunal, taking the appellant's monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and applying the multiplier of 17' based on the claimant's age but without addition towards Future Prospects has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.26,75,956/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Particulars Amount [In Rs.] 1. Pain and Sufferings 80,000/- 2. Medical Expenses 4,18,956/- 3. Transportation, Nourishment, Conveyance and attendant charges 50,000/- 4. Towards loss of future income due to permanent disability 13,77,000/- 5. Towards purchase of artificial Limb and for future medical expenses and 5,50,000/- 6. No. Particulars Amount [In Rs.] 1. Pain and Sufferings 80,000/- 2. Medical Expenses 4,18,956/- 3. Transportation, Nourishment, Conveyance and attendant charges 50,000/- 4. Towards loss of future income due to permanent disability 13,77,000/- 5. Towards purchase of artificial Limb and for future medical expenses and 5,50,000/- 6. Towards loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospectus 2,00,000/- Total 26,75,956/- Since there is contributory negligence of 10% as determined by the Tribunal, the appellant is awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.24,08,361/- [Rs.26,75,956/- - Rs.2,67,595/-] 3. Mr. K. T. Gurudeva Prasad submits that this Court must award higher compensation towards (i) Pain and Sufferings, (ii) Cost of Transportation, Nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant Charges, (iii) Loss of Future Income because of Permanent Disability, and (iv) Loss of Income during laid up period. Mr. K. T. Gurudeva Prasad submits under these heads: 3.1 On the Pain and Suffering. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.80,000/- but the appellant, who has suffered multiple fractures in his right leg and also the upper limb. He was hospitalized for over of four months, and ultimately, the Doctors have decided to ampute his right leg below knee. These circumstances have put the appellant to lots of pain and suffering, and there must be just compensation under this head. 3.2 On the Cost of Transportation, Nourishment and other Charges : The appellant, a resident of Tamil Nadu but working in Bengaluru was hospitalized for over four months in Bengaluru with different Hospitals until he suffered the amputation. A sum of Rs.50,000/- towards Transportation, Nourishment and other charges in this context will be very paltry and there must be just an enhancement. 3.3 On the Loss of Future Income due to Permanent Disability : The Tribunal has erred in taking the percentage of Permanent Disability at 45% and it must be higher, given that the claimant's budding career is nipped at a young age resulting in not just disablement but Loss of Future Prospects. The appellant has produced the Letter of Appointment [Ex. - P17], which shows that without variables, the cost to the Company [M/s. AGIES Co. Ltd.] is Rs.21,000/- per month and this should have been taken as the income of the injured instead of Rs.15,000/-. The appellant has produced the Letter of Appointment [Ex. - P17], which shows that without variables, the cost to the Company [M/s. AGIES Co. Ltd.] is Rs.21,000/- per month and this should have been taken as the income of the injured instead of Rs.15,000/-. The learned counsel also submits that the computation without addition towards Loss of Future Prospects denies just compensation towards Loss of Future Income; that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of fourth months without income, and he must be awarded Loss of Income during laid up period at least for 6 [six] months at the rate of Rs.21,000/-, which was the Cost to the Company in terms of the Appointment Letter. 4. Mr. Ravi Samprathi, the learned counsel for the Insurer does not dispute the salient that (i) the appellant was aged 25 years as of the date of the accident, (ii) he had the benefit of an appointment with an assurance of being paid Rs.21,000/- per month without variables, (iii) the appellant has suffered amputation below knee in the right leg after hospitalization with different hospitals for over four months, and (iv) the appellant, who was working as a Senior Customer Executive with M/s. AGIES Co. Ltd., has lost Future Prospects with the amputation of his right leg. On the question of disability, the learned counsel does not debate that under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 for amputation below knee, the Permanent Disability is taken at 50%. 5. This stand reduces the canvas for consideration, and the appeal stands disposed of considering the following questions: Whether there must be enhancement in the compensation towards (a) Pain and Suffering, (b) Cost of Transportation, Nourishment and other Charges, (c) Loss of Future Income because of Permanent Disability, and whether there must be award on Loss of Income during laid up period. 6. The medical records indicate that the appellant suffered multiple injuries not just to the limb that is amputated but even otherwise, and he has undergone the trauma of hospitalization with different hospitals ultimately resulting in amputation of right leg below knee. There must be just compensation. This Court, on a holistic reading of all the circumstances is of the opinion that the compensation for Pain and Suffering must be in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.80,000/-. 7. Similarly, the award of compensation towards Cost of Transportation must be just. There must be just compensation. This Court, on a holistic reading of all the circumstances is of the opinion that the compensation for Pain and Suffering must be in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.80,000/-. 7. Similarly, the award of compensation towards Cost of Transportation must be just. If the appellant is hospitalized for four months in Bengaluru and he is a resident of Tamil Nadu, it would not be an exaggeration to opine that he would have spent in the least a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards Transportation, Nourishment, Attendant Charges and Conveyance apart from the stay for the attendant. This Court is of the view that therefore there must be an enhancement in a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- under this head as against a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 8. This Court must observe that the Permanent Disability must be taken at 50% with the amputation of the right leg below knee as this would be the percentage of Permanent Disability even according to the Schedule of Disability [Schedule - I] of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. There cannot be a dispute, with the settled law, that there must be addition towards Future Prospects, and that must be, given the appellant's age and that he was in permanent employment, at 40% of his income. 9. The Tribunal has taken the appellant's income at Rs.15,000/- per month on scrutiny of payslips observing certain variance, but the crucial document in this Court's considered opinion will be the Appointment Letter and the terms thereof. The appellant is assured, apart from Basic Salary, House Rent Allowance, Bonus [as per Payment of Bonus Act, 1965] and ESI Contribution from the employer, a sum of Rs.21,000/-. This Court is of the view that there is no reason to take any amount less than this amount as the income. 10. The Loss of Future Income because of Permanent Disability must be computed taking Rs.21,000/- as the monthly income with addition towards Future Prospects at 40% and applying the Multiplier of 17'. In that event, the just compensation towards Loss of Future Income will be in a sum of Rs.59,97,600/-. 10. The Loss of Future Income because of Permanent Disability must be computed taking Rs.21,000/- as the monthly income with addition towards Future Prospects at 40% and applying the Multiplier of 17'. In that event, the just compensation towards Loss of Future Income will be in a sum of Rs.59,97,600/-. The computation of this amount will be as follows: Monthly Income 21,000.00 Addition Towards Future Prospects at 40% 8,400.00 Monthly Income with addition towards Future prospects 29,400.00 Annual Income with addition 3,52,800.00 Multiplier 17 Total 59,97,600.00 This Court then opines that there must be an award of compensation towards Loss of Income for Hospitalization, and with the fact that the appellant was hospitalized for four months, the amount under this head would be in a sum of Rs.84,000/ [Rs.21,000 x 4]. The comparative table of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by this Court reads as under. Sl No. Description of the Heads Amount by the Tribunal [In Rs.] Amount by this Court [In Rs.] 1 Pain and Sufferings 80,000.00 1,00,000.00 2 Medical Expenses 4,18,956.00 4,18,956.00 3 Transportation, Nourishment, Conveyance and attendant charges 50,000.00 1,20,000.00 4 Towards Loss of Future Income due to permanent disability 13,77,000.00 59,97,600.00 5 Towards purchase of artificial Limb and for future medical expenses and 5,50,000.00 5,50,000.00 6 Towards loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospectus 2,00,000.00 2,00,000.00 7 Loss of income during laid up period 84,000.00 Total 26,75,956.00 74,70,556.00 Deduction 10% towards Appellant's Contributory Negligence 2,67,595.60 7,47,055.60 After Deduction towards Contributory Negligence 24,08,360.40 67,23,500.40 Difference 43,15,140.00 11. The appeal must be disposed of granting additional compensation in a sum of Rs.43,15,140/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the petition till the deposit directing the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced compensation. In the light of the afore: ORDER : a. The appeal is allowed in part. b. The appellant is granted enhanced compensation of Rs.43,15,140/- along with interest at 6% per annum. c. The second respondent [the Insurer] is called upon to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest within six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. d. The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records at the earliest.