JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant not satisfied with the award of Rs. 4,17,400/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident occurred on 29.01.2006. At the time of accident, the appellant was going from West to East in his motorcycle, which was dashed down by a Maruthi Car coming in the opposite direction rashly and negligently. Therefore, the claim petition. 2. On contest the Tribunal found the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car and fastened the liability on the second respondent Insurance Company as the insurer. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the appellant determined the disability at 40%, even though the claimant claimed 65% disability, and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,17,400/-. The said award is challenged. 3. Heard Mr. T. Selvakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N. Murugesan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company with regard to the liability. Therefore, the said issue attained finality. Even otherwise, based on the evidence of P.W. 1, who sustained injury and Ex. P.1 - F.I.R., the Tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Car. 5. The claimant sustained the following injuries: “1. Compound comminuted fracture grade 3B lower end of Femur Right. 2. Compound comminuted Grade 3B Pattella Fracture right Knee. 3. Compound Comminuted Grade 3-B tibial condyle Fracture grade right. 4. Compound grade 3B 3rd mentatarsal fracture Right foot. 5. Compound grade 3B 4th mentatarsal fracture Right foot. 6. Compound grade 3B 5th mentatarsal fracture Right foot. 7. Degloving injury dorsum of right foot. 8. Lacerated wound medical aspect of right leg. 9. Severaly comminuted Fracure lower and both Bones right forearm. 10. Fracture right clavicle. 11. Multiple abrasions over face. 12. Abrasion over right elbow. 13. Abrasion over right fore head. 14. Abrasion over right thigh. 15. Radial nerve injury - right. 16. Amputation of fore foot right.” 6. The list of injuries would show that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and almost 16 injuries he sustained. Moreover, the injuries lead to amputation of the right fore foot of the appellant. Abrasion over right elbow. 13. Abrasion over right fore head. 14. Abrasion over right thigh. 15. Radial nerve injury - right. 16. Amputation of fore foot right.” 6. The list of injuries would show that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and almost 16 injuries he sustained. Moreover, the injuries lead to amputation of the right fore foot of the appellant. Therefore, it is very clear that the appellant is not in a position to do his normal activities. It is also the finding of the Tribunal. 7. Though the claimant examined P.W. 2 - doctor to speak about the injuries and disability sustained by the claimant based on medical records, the Tribunal on its own reduced the disability to 40% from 65%, which the Doctor assessed as per the guidelines of World Health Organisation. The Tribunal committed grave error in reducing the disability assessed by the expert in the absence of any contra evidence. Therefore, the disability, as spoken by P. W. 2 doctor, is determined at 65%, which is proved by Ex. P. 2 - Wound Certificate, Ex. - 8 Medical records and Ex. P. 13 - Disability Certificate. 8. It is proved by records as well as P. W. 4 - Income Tax Officer that the appellant is an income tax assessee and he has filed returns for the assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Thereafter, from 2006- 2007 onward the appellant did not file any income tax return which would prove that the appellant is unable to do any business because of the disability. As proved by P. Ws. 1 and 4, the appellant was doing labour contract work and earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per year. Therefore, Rs. 1,00,000/- declared by the appellant to the Income Tax Department as income during the year 2005 - 2006 should be taken as yearly income of the appellant. 9. Because of the amputation of the leg as well as so many injuries the petitioner is not in a position to lead normal life and he cannot do any work. Therefore, multiplier method has to be applied for calculating the compensation. Ex. P. 2 - Wound Certificate would show that the appellant's age was 50 at the time of accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 11. Therefore, loss of income : Disability x Yearly Income x Multiplier : 65% x Rs. 1,00,000/- x 11 : Rs. 7,15,000/-. 10. Therefore, multiplier method has to be applied for calculating the compensation. Ex. P. 2 - Wound Certificate would show that the appellant's age was 50 at the time of accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 11. Therefore, loss of income : Disability x Yearly Income x Multiplier : 65% x Rs. 1,00,000/- x 11 : Rs. 7,15,000/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities. It is increased to Rs. 50,000/- as petitioner's leg was amputated. Only a paltry sum of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal for the pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of injuries and number of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the same is increased to Rs. 50,000/-. Rs. 1,000/- awarded towards extra-nourishments is increased to Rs. 10,000/-. As per Exs. P. 9 and 10 - medical bills, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs. 2,28,000/- towards medical expenses. No amount was awarded towards Transport expenses. The total compensation comes to Rs. 10,63,000/-. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has sought for only Rs. 10,00,000/- the said amount is rounded of to Rs. 10,00,000/-. 11. In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,17,400/- is enhanced to Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall transfer the entire compensation amount to the personal Savings Bank Account Number of the appellant through RTGS/NEFT system within a period of two weeks from the date of deposit. In other aspects the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs.