JUDGMENT : K.V. ARAVIND, J. 1. Heard Sri. Nagaraja Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is preferred by the claimant in MVC No.261/2017, assailing the judgment and award dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapura , the Tribunal , seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant/petitioner, while riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-20-S-7879, met with an accident involving a goods vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-20-A-5841, owned by respondent No.1 and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. It is pleaded that the petitioner was initially admitted to Chinmayi Hospital, Kundapura, and was thereafter shifted to KMC Hospital, Kundapura, where he was treated as an in-patient. 3.1 The appellant sustained fracture injuries, head injury, and nerve injuries. It is stated that the petitioner has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards hospital and medical expenses, food and extra nourishment charges, conveyance charges, and nursing and attendant charges, and that he would require a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards future medical treatment. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was engaged in centering and carpenter work and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to carry on any work. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 3.2 After service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and was placed ex parte. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed a written statement denying the averments made in the petition and contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner. It was further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. 3.3 The petitioner examined himself as PW.1. The ENT Surgeon was examined as PW.2, and the Orthopedic Surgeon was examined as PW.3. The petitioner marked documents at Exs.P1 to P85. Respondent No.2 did not lead any oral evidence; however, Ex.R1 was marked on its behalf. 3.4 The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the functional disability of the petitioner is 75%. The petitioner marked documents at Exs.P1 to P85. Respondent No.2 did not lead any oral evidence; however, Ex.R1 was marked on its behalf. 3.4 The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the functional disability of the petitioner is 75%. In the absence of proof of established income, the Tribunal assessed the notional income at Rs. 9,500/- per month and added 15% towards future prospectus, as the petitioner was aged between 50 and 60 years. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 11. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 17,07,496/- under various heads. 4. Sri. Nagaraja Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant/petitioner is unable to perform any work and requires the assistance of an attendant for his day-to-day activities. It is contended that the disability suffered by the appellant is 100%. It is further submitted that, due to the injuries, the appellant is not only unable to perform his earlier avocation of centering work but is also disabled from carrying on any work whatsoever, thereby resulting in 100% functional disability. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under various other heads is on the lower side. 5. Sri. S.V. Hedge Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified, having regard to the evidence on record. Learned counsel further submits that the assessment of functional disability at 75% is more than justified in the facts of the case. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads is reasonable and does not call for any further enhancement. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is inclined to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and enhance the compensation under certain heads. 7. The accident, involvement of the vehicles in question and the liability of the insurer is not in dispute. The appellant contends that he was engaged in centering and carpenter work and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. In the absence of evidence to substantiate the income and avocation claimed, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the notional income at Rs. 9,500/- per month, as suggested by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The appellant contends that he was engaged in centering and carpenter work and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. In the absence of evidence to substantiate the income and avocation claimed, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the notional income at Rs. 9,500/- per month, as suggested by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The addition of 15% towards future prospects, considering that the petitioner was aged between 50 and 60 years, is in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Similarly, the application of a multiplier of 11 is also justified. 8. As per the evidence of the doctor, the petitioner has suffered multiple disabilities. He has sustained 40% permanent disability to the right lower limb (locomotor function), 26% permanent disability to the right upper limb (locomotor function), and 9% permanent disability to the left upper limb (locomotor function). The Tribunal, having regard to the permanent disabilities suffered to the limbs, assessed the functional disability at 75%. 9. The petitioner contended that, on account of the injuries sustained, he is not in a position to carry on any work and requires the assistance of an attendant for his day-to-day activities. However, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the said contention. In the absence of any supporting material, it is difficult to accept the said plea. The Tribunal was therefore justified in assessing the functional disability at 75%. 10. The petitioner was an in-patient for a period of 34 days and thereafter continued treatment in OPD, including physiotherapy. Having regard to the multiple grievous injuries sustained and the nature of treatment undergone, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side. We deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 80,000/- + Rs. 20,000/-) under this head. 11. The compensation awarded towards medical expenses is based on the bills produced and does not call for interference. However, the compensation awarded towards conveyance, diet, and attendant charges is on the lower side. The petitioner was an in-patient for 34 days and thereafter continued treatment as an outpatient. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-) under this head. 12. However, the compensation awarded towards conveyance, diet, and attendant charges is on the lower side. The petitioner was an in-patient for 34 days and thereafter continued treatment as an outpatient. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-) under this head. 12. The compensation awarded under the head of loss of income during the laid-up period is justified and does not warrant interference. The compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities is also on the lower side. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the percentage of whole-body disability, and the functional disability suffered by the petitioner, the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Based on the evidence on record, we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs. 75,000/-. 12.1 In view of the above, the compensation of Rs. 17,07,496/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as follows: 13. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 17,97,496/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum is maintained. 14. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER : (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award in MVC No.261/2017 dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Kundapura is modified. (iii) The compensation of Rs. 17,07,496/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. is modified and enhanced to sum of Rs. 17,97,496/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (iv) The enhanced compensation shall be deposited within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (v) The enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the appellant. (vi) No order as to costs. (vii) Registry to return trial Court records.