JUDGMENT : (Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1210 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal. 2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 10.09.2007 at 09.30 p.m., while he was riding as a pillion in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-4/M-6781 through Kanjirappally – Erattupetta road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-01/E-312 ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the appellant’s motorcycle, whereby the appellant sustained serious injuries. The 1st respondent is the driver, 2 nd respondent is the registered owner, 3 rd respondent is the insured and the 4th respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 remained ex parte. The 4 rd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,92,500/- as compensation under different heads against the 4th respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads: Loss of earnings:- The Tribunal found that the appellant who was working as a salesman in the Kerala Beverages Corporation was earning an amount of Rs.88,320/- as salary and he receives only an amount of Rs.23,900/- and there was a loss of Rs.64,420/- from his salary. But the tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.40,000/- after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses. Since the claim petition was filed seeking compensation for injuries sustained that resulted in permanent disability, by the injured himself, the Tribunal should not have effected any deduction at all, towards personal expenses. The deduction of 1/3rd done is not justified. Hence, I find that the appellant is entitled to get the full amount of Rs.64,420/-. Since the claim petition was filed seeking compensation for injuries sustained that resulted in permanent disability, by the injured himself, the Tribunal should not have effected any deduction at all, towards personal expenses. The deduction of 1/3rd done is not justified. Hence, I find that the appellant is entitled to get the full amount of Rs.64,420/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Hence the appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.24,420/- as well. Notional income: The main contention of the appellant is that the monthly notional income fixed by the tribunal is on the lower side. It is evident that the Tribunal treated the appellant as an employee of Kerala State Beverages Corporation and identified the multiplier with reference to the age of retirement on superannuation. The monthly income for the post retiral period was taken only as Rs.2,000/-. I am of the view that the monthly income fixed notionally by the Tribunal in that regard is too meagre and it invites interference. I am of the view that even after retirement he could earn a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and accordingly, I fix the monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation for permanent disability as Rs.5,000/-. Permanent disability:- Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability of the appellant as 15%. The learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent insurer contended that the appellant did not examine the doctor who issued the said certificate and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have acted upon Ext.A14 especially taking note of the fact that it is not one issued by a duly constituted Medical Board. A perusal of paragraph 13 of the impugned award would reveal that the Tribunal had taken note of the reasons stated in Ext.A14 disability certificate for assessing the extent of disability of the appellant and evidently, the Tribunal had the advantage of seeing the appellant. This fact was duly recorded in the impugned award itself. In such circumstances, though it is not advisable or desirable to base an assessment on such a certificate which was not proved, I do not think it is appropriate to interfere with the assessment of permanent disability made by the Tribunal, especially taking note of the nature of the injuries and the nature of the treatment undergone. In such circumstances, though it is not advisable or desirable to base an assessment on such a certificate which was not proved, I do not think it is appropriate to interfere with the assessment of permanent disability made by the Tribunal, especially taking note of the nature of the injuries and the nature of the treatment undergone. Hence, I do not interfere with the assessment of permanent disability done by the Tribunal with the aid of Ext.A14 disability certificate, especially taking note of the fact that none of the respondents preferred any appeal despite the assessment of permanent disability of the appellant by the Tribunal in that manner. If the insurer was aggrieved by the assessment of permanent disability arrived at by the tribunal, the insurer ought to have raised the challenge by way of appeal and cannot raise a challenge on the disability fixed by the tribunal in the appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation. In such circumstances, re-assessment of the compensation for permanent disability is required only by substituting the monthly income as Rs.5,000/- in place of Rs.2,000/-. On such re-assessment, a total amount of Rs.72,000/- (5000x12x8x15%) is payable to the appellant towards compensation for permanent disability. After deducting the amount of Rs.28,800/- already granted thereunder, the appellant would be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.43,200/- under that head. Loss of amenities:- I also found that it is the contention of the appellant that the amount of compensation granted under the head `loss of amenities' is also too meagere. The Tribunal assessed the permanent disability of the appellant as 15%. Taking note of the said aspect as well as the period of hospitalisation undergone by the appellant and also the nature of the injuries sustained, I am of the view that the compensation granted thereunder requires a modification. Accordingly, I grant an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- under that head. Bystander expenses and Extra nourishment:- The appellant had been an inpatient for a period of 51 days. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal, taking into account the nature of the injuries, that the appellant must have had bystander's service for a period of four months. The Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.6,000/- under the head `bystander expenses' and Rs.1,000/- towards `extra nourishment'. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal, taking into account the nature of the injuries, that the appellant must have had bystander's service for a period of four months. The Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.6,000/- under the head `bystander expenses' and Rs.1,000/- towards `extra nourishment'. Taking note of the year of the accident I am of the view that the rate at which amounts were granted under those heads invites interference. According to me, since the accident occured in the year 2007, an amount of Rs.150/- per day ought to have been granted as `bystander expenses' and Rs.100/- per day as `extra nourishment'. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to grant an additional compensation of Rs.12,000/- towards `bystander expenses' and Rs.11,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment'. 6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) Total compensation (in Rs.) 1. Medical expenses Rs.1,82,200 Nil Rs.1,82,200 2. Loss of earnings Rs.40,000 Rs.24,420 Rs.64,420 3. Bystander expenses Rs.6,000 Rs.12,000 Rs.18,000 4. Extra nourishment Rs.1,000 Rs.11,000 Rs.12,000 5. Damage to clothing Rs.500 Nil Rs.500 6. Transport to Hospital Rs.6,000 Nil Rs.6,000 7. Pain and sufferings Rs.18,000 Nil Rs.18,000 8. Permanent partial disability resulting in loss of earning capacity Rs.28,800 Rs.43,200 Rs.72,000 9. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000 Rs.10,000 Rs.20,000 Total Rs.2,92,500 Rs.1,00,620 Rs.3,93,120 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,00,620 (Rupees one lakh six hundred and twenty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The 4th respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The 4th respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the 4th respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. On payment of the said amount by the 4th respondent, they are entitled to recover the same from respondent No.1 and additional respondent No.6.