JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. [MACA 1836/2011, MACA.987/2011, MACA.2044/2011] These appeals arise from a common award passed by the Tribunal in two claim petitions. The present appeals are from O.P.(MV) No.223 of 2004. 2. The claimant, appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1836 of 2011, was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL-13/A 7495 when it collided with another bus and the appellant suffered serious injuries. The accident occurred on 25.09.2003. The appellant had to amputate his right hand from above elbow. The appellant claimed a compensation for the injuries suffered as also the disability occasioned. The Tribunal found both the bus drivers to be negligent and mulcted liability at 50% on each of them. Though the Insurance Companies have also approached this Court [M.A.C.A.Nos.987 and 2044 of 2011], there is no challenge to the negligence so found by the Tribunal. The appeal of the assessee is confined to the enhancement claimed and those of the insurers assail the quantum granted by the Tribunal. 3. The appellant-claimant was admitted to Unity Health Complex, Mangalore, where amputation of right forearm above elbow was conducted. The appellant had also suffered some laceration scalp with cerebral concussion as noticed in Exhibit A10 wound certificate. Exhibit A11 discharge summary evidences the amputation having been carried out and hospitalization for a period of 14 days. 4. The expenses claimed were given in toto as per the bills produced by the claimant-appellant. For transportation also, an amount of Rs. 4,900/- was granted, most of which were supported by vouchers. 5. To prove his employment, the claimant has produced Exhibit A16 series, which are attested copies of two Passports in relation to himself. In fact, the copies of the Passports show that the claimant was continuously employed abroad and that too in the Sultanate of Oman. For proving the income, the appellant produced Exhibit A15. The learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that though the document is shown as tourist taxi bills in the award, actually Exhibit A15 is an income certificate. This Court has examined Exhibits A14 and A15. It is seen that Exhibit A14 is a series of taxi bills and Exhibit A15 is a certificate issued by the Omani employer of the injured, wherein his salary was shown as Omani Rial 142 per month. 6. This Court has also gone through the deposition of the injured-appellant, by name Narayanan. This Court has examined Exhibits A14 and A15. It is seen that Exhibit A14 is a series of taxi bills and Exhibit A15 is a certificate issued by the Omani employer of the injured, wherein his salary was shown as Omani Rial 142 per month. 6. This Court has also gone through the deposition of the injured-appellant, by name Narayanan. As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, the award only shows the examination of one Noushad, who was the claimant in the other application. However, the deposition of P.W.2 is seen from the records. It is also indicated that the 3rd respondent and the 6th respondent, both the Insurance Companies, have cross-examined the appellant-claimant. From the deposition it is seen that there is no serious dispute raised against Exhibit A15, though questions were generally asked on the same. Despite the fact that Exhibit A15 was shown as taxi bills, the records show the contrary. It is also seen from the document Exhibit A15 that it has been duly attested. The Oman Chamber of Commerce & Industry has attested the signature of the authorised signatory of Khalfan Khamis Rashid Al-Mujrafi, the employer of the injured. The document is also attested by the Embassy of India at Muscat, which attestation is of the signature and seal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sultanate of Oman. Hence, there is no reason why reliance should not be placed on the said document. The claim was that the appellant was entitled to a monthly income in Indian rupees of 15620/- and the Tribunal adopted only Rs. 10,000/-. The exchange rate on adopting the said computation would be Rs. 110/- per Omani Rial. There is no dispute on the exchange rate at that point of time, raised by the Insurance Companies in their cross-examination. In fact the learned Counsel for the claimant has argued that the exchange rate was higher and has also produced, across the Bar, the rates for the relevant period obtained from Google. But there is no authentication for the same and the income as claimed by the appellant has to be adopted. 7. In fact the learned Counsel for the claimant has argued that the exchange rate was higher and has also produced, across the Bar, the rates for the relevant period obtained from Google. But there is no authentication for the same and the income as claimed by the appellant has to be adopted. 7. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relies on Abraham Jacob v. Mubarak, (2014) 3 KerLT 883, Valsamma v. Binu Jose, (2014) 1 KerLT 10 and Sherfuddin v. Saveesh, (2014) 1 KLTOnLine 1109 wherein it was specifically found that for awarding future prospects, the probable earning as per the Indian standards has to be adopted in respect of persons who are employed abroad. The said decisions have been considered by this Court in Satheesan v. Musthafa, (2018) 4 KerLT 337. This court need only extract paragraph 11 of the said decision, which clearly distinguishes the aforesaid Division Bench decisions: "11. Even then the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the income as revealed by the documents produced in evidence cannot be taken in toto, since employment in a foreign country is beset with uncertainties. It is also argued that if such an income is taken for computation of future earnings, it would lead to undue benefit being conferred on the claimant. Valsamma is a case in which the claimant, who was the legal heir of the deceased, asserted an income of Rs. 20,000/- and relied on an agreement with the foreign employer, the labour card and the Passport. There was no clear indication of the amounts received by the deceased as income. In that context, finding that the documents are not sufficient to prove the income of the deceased, the Court assessed the income of the person in the context of Indian standards and for a Spray Painter the income was fixed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Sherfuddin was a claim filed by the injured itself, asserting an income of Rs. 28,000/- in his foreign employment at Qatar. Again, the Court found that there was no document showing the exact amount received by the claimant in his foreign employment. It was also found that the pleadings indicated an assertion of an amount of Rs. 28,000/- per mensem, while in deposition he stated it to be Rs. 60,000/-. 28,000/- in his foreign employment at Qatar. Again, the Court found that there was no document showing the exact amount received by the claimant in his foreign employment. It was also found that the pleadings indicated an assertion of an amount of Rs. 28,000/- per mensem, while in deposition he stated it to be Rs. 60,000/-. Finding discrepancy in the versions of the claimant itself as also the finding the exact amounts not being proved, the income of a driver-cum-salesman was fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. Abraham Jacob produced a salary certificate authenticated by the Consular Officer of the Embassy of India at Doha (Qatar) in accordance with the provisions under the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948. The Court found that such authentication would not give a go by to the requirement of proof insofar as the contents of the documents. Therein also when the claim of income from the foreign employer was of Rs. 1,15,000/- per month, the monthly income accepted, following Valsamma, was Rs. 40,000/-. It is fairly discernible that in all these decisions the different Division Benches adopted 1/4th of the amounts asserted by the claimants as the monthly income of the injured/deceased from the foreign employment. The uncertainties insofar as the foreign employment, as has been found in the various decisions, loom large and stand against the claimant in the present case also. But, that would not deter this Court from making a reasonable computation of the monthly income, again going by the binding precedents, at least 1/4th of the income in the foreign employment which, in the present case, stands proved unequivocally by reason of no objection having been raised on the proof of its contents at the time when it was marked in trial". 8. In this case, in fact the evidence is more compelling. The certificate issued by the employer of the appellant-claimant produced as Exhibit A15 clearly certifies that the appellant was working as a Plumber with the said employer from 23.03.1992 onwards. The two Passports of the appellant produced for two different periods and the endorsement of foreign travel made therein also clearly indicates that the appellant was employed in the Middle-East, that too under a single employer continuously for a long period. The two Passports of the appellant produced for two different periods and the endorsement of foreign travel made therein also clearly indicates that the appellant was employed in the Middle-East, that too under a single employer continuously for a long period. In Satheesan the injured was 32 years and here the claimant is 41 and when the accident occurred was working in the middle-east for 11 years. The loss of limb definitely would have resulted in his loss of employment as a Plumber. Hence, the income as seen from the certificate at Exhibit A15 has to be adopted and considering the age of the appellant at 41, for future prospects 25% has to be added. 9. The learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant has a contention based on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 that functional disability has to be assessed at 100% for reason of the amputation. It is also submitted that going by the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [for brevity "Act of 1923"], the Schedule indicates 70% for loss of earning capacity for amputation of the right hand. As against this, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company relies on the medical certificate produced, which is marked as Exhibit X2, indicating permanent disability of 50%. The contention of the Insurance Company is that when 50% was certified by the Medical Board, there could not have been an enhancement made by the Tribunal. 10. The Act of 1923 by Schedule I Part II item-3 injury indicates the percentage of loss of earning capacity as 70%. However, it is to be noticed that there is no measurement of the limb remaining and there cannot be a blanket adoption of the percentage as found in Part II of Schedule I of the Act of 1923. Further, considering the contention of the Insurance Company, it has to be noticed that Exhibit X2 certificate issued by the Medical Board of the District Hospital, Kannur shows 50% whole body disability. In Raj Kumar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically found that the functional disability has to be assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal who saw the appellant in person, assessed the disability at 65%. It is also pertinent that the appellant, who was a Plumber, could not have carried on his avocation after amputation of one of his hands. In Raj Kumar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically found that the functional disability has to be assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal who saw the appellant in person, assessed the disability at 65%. It is also pertinent that the appellant, who was a Plumber, could not have carried on his avocation after amputation of one of his hands. However, it cannot be said that he is totally disabled from carrying on any employment. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the claimant-appellant for enhancement; nor that of the Insurance Company for reduction of the percentage to that assessed by the Medical Board. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the percentage of disability as adopted by the Tribunal. The multiplier applied is 15. In fact, it should be 14, considering the age of the applicant. Considering the fact that full compensation was granted for loss of earning of 1 years, the multiplier has to be reduced a further one year period. The challenge against the compensation granted for loss of amenities by the insurers also cannot be upheld. 11. In such circumstances, the following enhancement is granted: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by the Tribunal ? Total amount after enhancement in appeal ? 1 Loss of earning (Total) 180000 [10000x18] 281160 [15620x18] 2 Medical and miscellaneous expenses 46000 46000 3 Bystander expenses 1400 [100x14] 2800 [200x14] 4 Transportation expenses 4900 4900 5 Extra nourishment 25000 25000 6 Pain and suffering 50000 50000 7 Disability income 1170000 [10000x12x15x65%] 1979835 [15620+25%(3905) x12x13x65%] 8 Loss of amenities and convenience etc. 100000 100000 9 Any other heads (review treatment) 10000 10000 Total 1587300 2499695 12. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Companies have a contention that the claim made by the claimant-appellant is far below the enhanced compensation granted by this Court. The principle as enunciated in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 3 KerLT 89 (SC)] is that when just compensation is awarded by the Court, it need not necessarily confine itself to the claim raised by the injured. It is also to be noticed that over the years there have been modifications and enhancements made, by reason of the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The amounts claimed under the various heads often is based on judgments as available at the time when the claim is filed. It is also to be noticed that over the years there have been modifications and enhancements made, by reason of the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The amounts claimed under the various heads often is based on judgments as available at the time when the claim is filed. The present enhancement has been granted on the basis of the judgment in Raj Kumar, wherein there was considerable increase of amounts awarded from that earlier considered as just compensation. The plea of the insurers to limit the award to that claimed, is hence rejected. 13. The appeal of the claimant-appellant [M.A.C.A.No.1836 of 2011] is allowed as above. The appeals of the Insurance Companies [M.A.C.A.Nos.987 and 2044 of 2011] are partly allowed. It is made clear that the liability shall be shared by the Insurance Companies in equal proportion. 14. The amounts awarded as indicated above, after deducting what has already been paid, shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment with interest from the date of application and costs, if any, as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant-appellant shall produce a copy of a cancelled cheque of the bank account in his name with copy of AADHAAR or acceptable identification, before the Tribunal within one month, with copy to the respective Insurance Companies. The Insurance Companies shall credit the amounts through NEFT/RTGS to the said account, failing which the claimant can approach the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs in these appeals.