Judgment : K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The Insurer fourth respondent in OP(MV) No.665/03 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, is the appellant herein. The claim was filed by the first respondent for the injuries and consequential disabilities suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the negligent driving of the vehicle insured with the appellant Insurance Company. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver insured with the appellant and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,28,435/- on various heads as follows; Head of claim Amount awarded (in Rupees) Medical and Miscellaneous expenses 96,935/- Transportation to the hospital 4,000/- Bystander's expenses 3,000/- Extra nourishment 3,000/- Damage to clothing 500/- Head of claim Amount awarded (in Rupees) Loss of earning 60,000/- Compensation for pain and suffering 25,000/- Compensation for continuing disability 3,06,000/- Compensation for loss of amenities 30,000/- Total 5,28,435/- Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the Insurance Company has come before this court by filing the above appeal. 2. We have heard counsel for the Insurance Company and the counsel for the respondent/claimant. 3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has taken Rs.10,000/-as the monthly income of the respondent on the ground that he is working as a motor mechanic in Soudi Arabia, though the Tribunal has not relied on the documents produced by the respondent to prove his income which is on the higher side. The same income has been taken for the purpose of assessing disability as well. Further, proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 33 as per Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2)KLT 802 is 16, but the Tribunal has taken 17 as the multiplier. So the total compensation awarded is excessive. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that he was working as a motor mechanic in Soudi Arabia from 1994 onwards and he had produced his passport and also certificate issued by his employer to prove this fact. But, in spite of that, the Tribunal has taken only Rs.10,000/-per month and awarded compensation. So there is no necessity to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal which is in fact very less comparing to the monthly income earned by the respondent at the time of accident. 5. But, in spite of that, the Tribunal has taken only Rs.10,000/-per month and awarded compensation. So there is no necessity to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal which is in fact very less comparing to the monthly income earned by the respondent at the time of accident. 5. We have considered the rival contentions in both parties in detail. 6. The case of the respondent was that he was working as a motor mechanic in Soudi Arabia and getting Rs.2000/- Soudi Riyal per month and he has produced Ext.A15 certificate alleged to have been issued by his employer to prove this fact. But since the employer was not examined, the Tribunal was justified in not relying on this document to prove his income, especially when there is uncertainty in employment in Gulf Countries and there is no evidence to show that he had lost his employment on account of injuries sustained. In spite of this, the Tribunal has fixed his monthly income as Rs. 10,000/-per month. It may be mentioned that the income in a foreign country where there is uncertainty in employment cannot be taken as such for the purpose of assessing the monthly income of an injured to award compensation. The Tribunal has to take the normal income which such a person will earn in India for that purpose. During 2002, a person who is working in a workshop in India will not be getting Rs.10,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. So we are re-fixing the monthly income of the respondent as Rs.5,000/- . If the monthly income is taken as 5,000/-the amount awarded under the head 'loss of earnings' will come to only Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. There is some force in submission made by the counsel for the appellant regarding the multiplier taken by the Tribunal. As per the decision in Sarala Verma's case (supra), the proper multiplier applicable in the age group of 33, as the respondent was, is only 16 and not 17. If taking his monthly income as Rs.5,000/-and multiplier as 16 and the disability as 15%, the respondent will be entitled to get only Rs.1,44,000/-(5000x12x16x15%) instead of Rs.3,06,000/-awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of earning capacity'. If taking his monthly income as Rs.5,000/-and multiplier as 16 and the disability as 15%, the respondent will be entitled to get only Rs.1,44,000/-(5000x12x16x15%) instead of Rs.3,06,000/-awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of earning capacity'. So the Tribunal awarded an excess amount of Rs.1,62,000/-under the head 'loss of earning capacity' and Rs.30,000/-under the head 'loss of earnings' which will have to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal to assess the actual compensation payable to the respondent. If this amount is deducted from the total compensation of Rs.5,28,435/-the respondent will be entitled to get Rs.3,36,435/- only as compensation. So we are re-fixing the compensation payable to the respondent as Rs.3,36,435/-which the appellant is liable to pay with the interest awarded by the Tribunal. With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is allowed in part.