ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant while riding his bike met with an accident on 28.01.2018. He sustained a head injury and other grievous injuries all over his body. The appellant was initially treated at Preliminary Health Centre, Thiyadurgam and then at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. He was then shifted to Neuro Foundation Hospital, Salem, where he was treated for two months. The appellant filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi (for short, `the Tribunal’). He was examined by two Medical Boards as part of the evidence led before the Tribunal. Eventually, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to Rs.13,32,600/- as compensation but since he was not wearing a helmet while driving the bike, 20% and 15% contributory negligence and negligence for travelling without a helmet, respectively were assessed. Hence, 65% of the assessed amount i.e. Rs.8,66,190/- was awarded to the appellant as compensation. 3. The above-stated Award was challenged by the respondent – Insurance Company in an appeal before the High Court primarily on the ground that the Tribunal erroneously assessed the functional disability at 100% whereas the Medical Board’s Certificate assessed the appellant’s disability at 45% only. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 04.08.2021, accepted the plea taken by the respondent – Insurance Company and after assessing the disability at 45%, the compensation amount was reduced to Rs. 4,81,065/-. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record. 5. This Court, has in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , laid down the multiplier scheme for computation of compensation in claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per that, the multiplier of 13 is to be applied for the age group of 46 to 50 years. This Court, thus, held as under: ”42. As per that, the multiplier of 13 is to be applied for the age group of 46 to 50 years. This Court, thus, held as under: ”42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [ (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [ (1996) 4 SCC 362 ] and Charlie [ (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ), 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, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” (emphasis supplied) 6. The multiplier scheme laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) was reaffirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 7. It may be seen from para 7 of the impugned judgment that the High Court accepted the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- and taking the disability assessed as 45%, the compensation amount towards disability was reduced to Rs.2,70,000/- i.e.(6000x45). 8. On the other hand, we find that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the disability compensation at Rs.9,36,000/- (6000x12x13), under the head of `Disability’, keeping in view the income of the appellant, his age (50 years) and after applying the appropriate multiplier of 13. 9. Since there is an arithmetical error in the very computation formula applied by the High Court while assessing the compensation amount, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside to that extent. It further appears to us that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and fair on the basis of correct application of the multiplier, the age of the appellant and his monthly income, in accordance with the methodology approved in Sarla Verma (supra). The error committed by the High Court, thus, deserves to be rectified. We order accordingly. It further appears to us that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and fair on the basis of correct application of the multiplier, the age of the appellant and his monthly income, in accordance with the methodology approved in Sarla Verma (supra). The error committed by the High Court, thus, deserves to be rectified. We order accordingly. As a consequence thereof, the appellant is held entitled to the compensation amount, as was awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal and after deducting the amount, if any already paid, be deposited with the Tribunal within a period of six weeks, which shall then be disbursed to the appellant. 11. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 12. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.