JUDGMENT : This matter is of the year 2022 and has not been admitted. However, both sides are ad idem that it can be disposed of, after being formally admitted, based on the undisputed evidence on record -handed over by them across the Bar. 2. I, therefore, admit this appeal and proceed to dispose it of finally, with the consent of both sides. 3. The Original Petition, from which the impugned Award was issued by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, was filed by late Ebrahim Kutty C.N., who was involved in an accident caused by the offending vehicle owned and driven by the sixth respondent, and which is insured by the appellant - Insurance Company. 4. Pertinently, the appellant does not dispute the accident, or the fact that late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. sustained injuries; but impugn the Award of the Tribunal broadly on three grounds namely: (a) that the notional income adopted in favour of the claimant was wrong; (b) that the multiplier adopted was incorrect; and (c) that the percentage of disability found in favour of late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. was without any basis. 5. I have heard Sri.P.G.Ganappan – learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri.Krishnalal S. -learned counsel appearing respondents 1 to 5. The notice to the sixth respondent has already been dispensed with; and, in any event, in view of the holdings proposed in this judgment, this Court would be justified in disposing of this appeal in his absence. 6. Sri.P.G.Ganappan – learned standing counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that since no evidence had been led by late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. or by his legal heirs, namely respondents 1 to 5 herein, regarding his income, the adoption of Rs.15,000/-as the notional income is in violation of the declarations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ]. He then submitted that, since the multiplier to be adopted was 9 and since it has already been so done by the Tribunal, an additional amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, towards 'loss of earnings' from 26.01.2017 to 09.02.2018, was incorrect. He then submitted that, since the multiplier to be adopted was 9 and since it has already been so done by the Tribunal, an additional amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, towards 'loss of earnings' from 26.01.2017 to 09.02.2018, was incorrect. He further contended that the conclusion of the Tribunal, that late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. had suffered 50% disability, is without any basis, particularly when it itself records in the impugned order that no evidence had been led by him or by his legal heirs to prove so. 7. In response, Sri.Krishnalal S. -learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. , because he was a self employed person, conducting his own furniture manufacturing unit and engaged in its retail sale. He submitted that, even going by Ramachandrappa (supra), the income reckonable for a person, with an unascertainable sum in the year 2017, was Rs.11,000/-; and that going by the further ratio in Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022 (5) KLT Online 1012 (SC)], a robust view has to be taken with respect to persons who are engaged in skilled work and such other avocations. 8. As regards the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, Sri.Krishnalal S., submitted that this is strictly in terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]; and that the contention of the appellant, that loss of earnings could not be given additionally, is not only untenable but without any rational basis. 9. As regards the third afore argument of the appellant, Sri.Krishnalal S., submitted that, even though the certificate of disability could not be produced by his clients or by late Ebrahim Kutty C.N., this has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal in paragraph 34 of the impugned award, wherein, it has found that the obtention of such a certificate was incapable on account of the peculiar facts involved in this case. He thus prays that this appeal be dismissed. 10. I have evaluated and assessed the rival submissions on the touchstone of various documents and materials available on record and those which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for parties. 11. Since the facts are not in dispute, it does not require this Court to deal with them in detail. 12. 10. I have evaluated and assessed the rival submissions on the touchstone of various documents and materials available on record and those which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for parties. 11. Since the facts are not in dispute, it does not require this Court to deal with them in detail. 12. The only points of controversy in this case are three: namely: (a) that the income reckoned by the Tribunal in favour of late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. was in error; (b) that the multiplier adopted was wrong; or in the alternative, that loss of earnings ought not to have been granted; and (c) that the functional disability adopted by the Tribunal was in error. I deal with each of these presently. (a) Income of late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. 13. The learned Tribunal has, in paragraph 32 of the impugned award, considered this issue in detail and found that, at the time when the accident occurred on 26.01.2017, late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. was self-employed and conducting his own manufacturing unit, with retail sale of wooden furniture. The Tribunal relied upon A12 series in substantiation of this and I do not see any reason to find error in this because, the said documents clearly show that he was a self-employed person engaged in a business. No doubt in Ramachandrappa (supra), the standard fixed for a person whose income is unascertainable is Rs.11,000/-per month for the year 2017; however, in Rajani (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, in the case of skilled workers, agricultural workers and persons engaged in such other avocations, a robust view has to be taken with respect to the income, which is to say that deviation from the standard set in Ramachandrappa (supra) would be permissible. 14. In the case at hand, Ext.A12 series, as I have already said above, establishes that late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. was a self-employed person conducting a business of his own, engaged in the manufacture and retail sale of wooden furniture. I do not, therefore, think that the Tribunal has erred, in any manner, in accepting Rs.15,000/-per month as the notional income, which is only Rs.4,000/-more than what has been standardised in Ramachandrappa (supra). I, therefore, answer this issue against the appellant. (b) The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal 15. I do not, therefore, think that the Tribunal has erred, in any manner, in accepting Rs.15,000/-per month as the notional income, which is only Rs.4,000/-more than what has been standardised in Ramachandrappa (supra). I, therefore, answer this issue against the appellant. (b) The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal 15. Sri.P.G.Ganappan – learned standing counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the award of compensation under the head 'loss of earnings', with the multiplier of 9, disentitles respondents 1 to 5 to additional compensation under the head 'permanent disability', with the same multiplier. His argument was that, when the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 9, to grant an amount of Rs.3,60,000/-under the head 'loss of earnings' for the period from 26.01.2017 to 09.02.2018, only a lower multiplier could have been adopted thereafter, for the purpose of computation of permanent disability. 16. I certainly cannot understand the purport of the afore argument because, the undisputed evidence on record shows that late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. was hospitalised for 120 days and was completely immobile for nearly two years. The 'loss of earnings' for the period from 26.01.2017 to 09.02.2018 was, therefore, inevitable and justifiable on all counts. Therefore, the only other issue is whether a lower multiplier ought to have been adopted. 17. In this regard, interestingly, Sri.P.G.Ganappan unequivocally admits that, going by Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier to be adopted is 9, which has been correctly done by the Tribunal. His assertion was, however, that once compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' had been granted, the multiplier for the purpose of compensation for disability ought to have been reduced to 7, which is the relevant one for a person in the age group of 61 to 65. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with this argument at all because, when it is admitted that late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. was 60 years at the time of the accident, it is apodictic that the multiplier to be adopted is 9. This cannot be altered in any manner, even though 'loss of earnings' has also been granted, for the reason that he was bedridden for nearly two years on account of the serious injuries caused in the accident. This argument, therefore, is also without merit. (c) Adoption of 50% as permanent disability 18. This cannot be altered in any manner, even though 'loss of earnings' has also been granted, for the reason that he was bedridden for nearly two years on account of the serious injuries caused in the accident. This argument, therefore, is also without merit. (c) Adoption of 50% as permanent disability 18. There is no doubt, as is also stated in the impugned Award, that no disability certificate had been obtained by late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. or by his family. However, the learned Tribunal explains this in paragraph 34 of the order, which is extracted as under, so as to avoid repetition: “There is no disability certificate produced by the petitioner. Ext.A4, A6 and A9 series documents would show that deceased Ebrahim Kutty C.N alias Ebrayikutty sustained severe head injury, subarachnoid haemorrhage in bilateral parietal, frontal and left temporal lobes, grade III diffuse axonal injury, diffuse cerebral edema, punctuate hemorrhagic contusion left frontal lobe, fornix haematoma with intraventricular haemorrhage involving left lateral ventricle, avulsion of right ear, temporal bone and cartilage exposed with multiple crushed fragments, near total amputation of tip of left thumb, loss of consciousness, right pinna avulsion injury from superior auriculo temporal sulcus extending over to the posterior aspect of cymba concha, with exposed crushed cartilages, LT thumb -crushed pulp tissu, NBI, LT forearm contusion over distal 1/3 with closed muscle/nerve injury and left hand post fasciotomy status issue loss from left thumb. Admittedly this claim petition filed by the deceased Ebrahim Kutty C.N alias Ebrayikutty. He died on 24.5.2021. Petitioner has filed IA.468/2019 for referring the petitioner to the Medical Board, Government Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and the same was closed by this Tribunal due to the death of petitioner. There is no circumstances to obtain disability certificate. In the petition it is stated that deceased undergone treatment from various hospitals. He has produced medical prescription dated 4.1.2020. The deceased was aged 60 years and 4 months (as per Ext.A14 copy of Aadhar card) at the time of accident.” 19. The afore view of the learned Tribunal certainly is justified, particularly because late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. died on 24.05.2021; while I.A.No.468/2019 -with a prayer to refer him to the Government Medical College, Kozhikode -was pending. There was no other option for the Tribunal but to then make an assessment of the disability on its own, based on the other documents, which are also without any contest. There was no other option for the Tribunal but to then make an assessment of the disability on its own, based on the other documents, which are also without any contest. 20. Going by the medical records, as has also been recorded in the impugned Award, the injuries sustained by late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. are as follows: “1. Severe head injury, 2. Subarachnoid haemorrhage in bilateral parietal, frontal and left temporal lobes, 3. Grade III diffuse axonal injury. 4. Diffuse cerebral edema, 5. Punctuate hemorrhagic contusion left frontal lobe, 6. Fornix haematoma with intraventricular haemorrhage involving left lateral ventricle, 7. Avulsion of right ear, 8. Temporal bone and cartilage exposed with multiple crushed fragments, 9. Near total amputation of tip of left thumb, 10. Loss of consciousness, Right pinna avulsion injury from superior auriculo temporal sulcus extending over to the posterior aspect of cymba concha, with exposed crushed cartilages. 11. LT thumb - crushed pulp tissu, NBI, 12. LT forearm contusion over distal 1/3 with closed muscle/nerve injury, 13. Left hand post fasciotomy status tissue loss from left thumb.” 21. The learned Tribunal has, in paragraph 37 of the impugned Award, correctly recorded that “as per part II of first schedule of Employees Compensation Act 1953, percentage of loss of earning capacity is 30% in case of loss of thumb, 40% in case of loss of thumb and its metatarsal bone, 20% in case of terminal phalanx of thumb and 10% in case of guillotine amputation of tip of thumb without loss of bone” (sic), which is the best standard that could have been adopted in the given circumstances. The evidence on file limpidly show that late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. underwent total amputation of the tip of his left thumb and that he was in the hospital for more than 120 days in an unconscious condition. The injuries, as recorded above, are extremely serious, which could have ended even in the death of late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. Hence the assessment of his disability, as being 50%, certainly is justifiable, particularly because it is also on record – which is also admitted – that he was unable to engage himself in any avocation for nearly two years. 22. 22. I cannot find the stand adopted by the Tribunal to be perverse or unconscionable; and am certain that, while acting in appellate jurisdiction, it would be incumbent on this Court to assess it against acceptable forensic yardsticks and to approve it, if found to be justified. 23. As far as this case is concerned, the assessment of the disability of late Ebrahim Kutty C.N. cannot be found to be unjustified; and am, therefore, of the view that this Court is now obliged to grant imprimatur to the holdings of the Tribunal. In the afore circumstances, this appeal is dismissed; however, without making any order as to costs and directing the parties to suffer their own.