JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 648 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Mavelikara, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 18.02.2012, while he was walking along the side of a public road. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-04/M-9656 owned and ridden by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal and insured with the respondent herein. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the 1st respondent rider, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 3,43,000/- under various heads, which was limited to Rs. 2,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fee. 2. Before the Tribunal, the owner-cum rider of the motorcycle remained absent and he was set ex-parte. 3. The respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the motorcycle involved in the accident; however, contending that the 1st respondent was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The insurer also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the appellant. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition. The insurer contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. The document marked as Ext.X1 is the disability certificate. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute and no steps were taken to prove violation of the conditions of policy, the respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 91,523/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate cost, and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 6. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 91,523/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate cost, and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 9. In State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur, (2003) 7 SCC 484 the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. 10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of just compensation and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of just compensation has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of just compensation has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus:- S. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded (in Rs.) Basis-vital details in a nutshell 1 Loss of earnings 60,000 21,000 3,500 x 6 2 Partial loss of earnings 5,000 Nil 3 Transportation 3,000 2,000 4 Extra nourishment 2,000 2,000 5 Damage to clothing 750 750 6 Medical expense 20,000 12,949 As per Ext.A12 series 7 Bystanders expense 2,250 2,250 8 Compensation for pain and sufferings 25,000 15,000 9 Compensation for permanent disability and future prospects 1,75,000 35,574 (3,500+350) x 12 x 7/100 x 11) 10 Compensation for loss of earning power 30,000 Nil 11 Compensation for loss of amenities in life 20,000 Nil Total Rs. 3,43,000/- (limited to Rs. 2,00,000/- only) Rs. 91,523/- 12. The accident occurred on 18.02.2012. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 55 years. The appellant claimed a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- as carpenter. The document marked as Ext.A11 is the copy of the identity card issued by Kerala Artisans Welfare Board. No materials were produced before the Tribunal to prove the monthly income of the appellant. The appellant has also not chosen to mount the box. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs. 3,500/- for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 13. In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in the year 2004, at the age of 35 years, notionally as Rs. 4,500/-. The Apex Court held that, the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. 4,500/-. The Apex Court held that, the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. The Apex Court made it clear that, in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant, in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 14. In Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 , taking note of the earlier decision in Ramachandrappa's case (supra), the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs. 6,500/-. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that, a labourer in an unorganised sector doing his own business cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy prevailing at that time and the rising prices in agricultural products, the Apex Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs. 6,500/- per month. 15. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e. during the year 2012 and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally as Rs. 8,750/- for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A6 is the accident register cum wound certificate; Ext.A7 is the discharge card and Ext.A8 is the treatment certificate. 8,750/- for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A6 is the accident register cum wound certificate; Ext.A7 is the discharge card and Ext.A8 is the treatment certificate. As evident from medical records, in the accident, the appellant sustained pain and deformity left leg, abrasion over right knee, right leg and left leg, abrasion left side of chest, comminuted fracture both bones of left leg, Type-I compound fracture tibia both bones segmental fibula (left). The appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 10 days. Ext.A12 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs. 12,949/-. 17. The document marked as Ext.X1 is the disability certificate (wrongly stated as Ext.A10 in the impugned award) in which the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 7%. The Tribunal accepted the permanent disability assessed in Ext.X1, for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. 18. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,000/- at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- for a period of 6 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the period of 6 months fixed by the Tribunal for granting loss of earning is just and reasonable. Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs. 8,750/- the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs. 52,500/- (8,750 x 6), resulting an additional compensation of Rs. 31,500/- (52,500 - 21,000). 19. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 10 days. The accident is of the year 2012. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs. 3,000/- resulting an additional compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (3,000 - 2,000). 20. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,250/-. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The accident is of the year 2012 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 10 days. 3,000/- resulting an additional compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (3,000 - 2,000). 20. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,250/-. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The accident is of the year 2012 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 10 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under these heads represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 21. Towards damage to clothing and articles, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 750/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2012, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs. 1,250/-, resulting an additional compensation of Rs. 500/- (1,250 - 750). 22. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,949/- covered by Ext.A12 series of medical bills. In the absence of any further materials, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 23. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is re-fixed as Rs. 20,000/- resulting an additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (20,000 - 15,000) under this head. 24. In Mekala vs. Malathi M. (2014) 11 SCC 178 the appellant/claimant before the Apex Court was a student of 11th Standard, when the accident took place on 11.04.2005. She was holding first rank in her school. She had an excellent career ahead of her, but for the accident in which she sustained grievous injuries, and became a permanently disabled. In Ext.P12 disability certificate, the doctor - PW-2 certified a permanent disability of 70% on account of the fractures sustained to both the legs. Upon examination PW-2 opined that the appellant is not able to squat. She is not able to sit with cross legged comfortably on the floor and the right range of movement (goniometer) - Fixed Flexion Deformity (FFD) of 850 - ligament instability on account of grievous injuries. PW2 deposed that the appellant has sustained fracture of both bones in both the legs. She is not able to sit with cross legged comfortably on the floor and the right range of movement (goniometer) - Fixed Flexion Deformity (FFD) of 850 - ligament instability on account of grievous injuries. PW2 deposed that the appellant has sustained fracture of both bones in both the legs. The knee folding is restricted between 25 degree to 85 degree and the legs could not be stretched fully and the knee bones are mal-united and she cannot walk without crutches. PW2 deposed further that the appellant is suffering from severe pain while walking and the thickness of her both legs are reduced. The High Court of Judicature at Madras awarded compensation under the head loss of earning, taking a monthly notional income of Rs. 6,000/- in the absence of any document on record, as she was a student. The Apex Court held that, the fact that the appellant was a brilliant student at the time of the accident should also be taken into consideration while awarding compensation to her. Therefore, taking Rs. 6,000/- as monthly notional income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of earning is too meager an amount. Considering the fact that the appellant is a brilliant student, as she has secured first rank in the 10th Standard, she would have had a better future in terms of educational career to acquire basic or master degrees in the professional courses and she could have got a suitable public or private employment. But, on account of the permanent disablement she suffered due to injuries sustained in the accident, that opportunity is lost to her and therefore, she is entitled to compensation as per law laid down by the Court in the cases of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 and Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 683 . Further, having regard to the undisputed fact that there has been inflation of money in the country since the occurrence of the accident, the same has to be taken into account by the Tribunal and the High Court while awarding compensation to the appellant as per the principle laid down in the case of Govind Yadav, which has reiterated the position of Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 . The Apex Court noticed that the appellant has undergone and undergoing substantial pain and suffering due to the accident, which has rendered both her legs dysfunctional. This has reduced the scope of her future prospects including her marriage substantially. It has been held in the case of Reshma Kumari that certain relevant factors should be taken into consideration while awarding compensation under the head of future prospect of income. In the light of the principles laid down in the said case and keeping in mind the past results of the appellant, the Apex Court took her monthly income as Rs. 10,000/- for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of earning. The Apex Court held that the appellant is entitled for 50% increase, taking into consideration the future prospects, as per the principle laid down in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 . 25. In Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 , the Apex Court granted disability compensation to the injured, adding 50% future prospects to the notional monthly income, based on the principle laid down in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited (2012) 6 SCC 421 . A reading of the said decision would show that the injured before the Apex Court were having higher percentage of functional disability, on account of permanent disability, which had resulted in higher extent of loss of future earning capacity, and it was in such circumstances that the Apex Court granted them disability compensation by adding future prospects. 26. In the impugned award, the Tribunal added 10% of the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects. As per Ext.X1 disability certificate, the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is only 7%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the permanent disability arising therefrom, the appellant cannot be treated as an injured having higher percentage of functional disability, on account of permanent disability, which had resulted in higher extent of loss of future earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of compensation under the head permanent disability, adding future prospects to his notional monthly income. 27. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of compensation under the head permanent disability, adding future prospects to his notional monthly income. 27. In Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said decision prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie, which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years, reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e. multiplier of 17 for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of 16 for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of 15 for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of 14 for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e. multiplier of 11 for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of 9 for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of 7 for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of 5 for 66 to 70 years. 28. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, as far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma, read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. 29. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 55 years. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case and Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, the multiplier of 11 applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 30. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 35,574/- (3,500 + 350) x 12 x 7/100 x 11. Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs. 30. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 35,574/- (3,500 + 350) x 12 x 7/100 x 11. Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs. 8,750/- applying the multiplier of 11 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability as 7%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs. 80,850/- (8,750 x 12 x 11 x 7/100), resulting an additional compensation of Rs. 45,276/- (80,850 - 35,574). 31. Towards loss of amenities the Tribunal awarded no amount. In Ext.X1 disability certificate the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 7%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 7% permanent disability on account of those injuries, as assessed in Ext.X1 disability certificate, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities. 32. In the result, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of Rs. 93,276/- (Rupees ninety three thousand two hundred seventy six only) 31,500 + 1,000 + 500 + 5,000 + 45,276 + 10,000 in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The respondent insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of additional compensation to the appellant/ claimant shall be made taking note of the law on the point and in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No. 3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No. D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. The appellant shall provide his Bank account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, with copy to the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 33. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.