JUDGMENT : This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), has been filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1252/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 23/03/2018. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the petitioner, on 27/11/2006 at 10:00 a.m. he was riding his motorcycle, bearing registration No. KL-H-1082 through the Adoor-Punalur public road and when he reached Adoor-Thatta road, a mini lorry, bearing registration No.TN-76-A-1218, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. The first respondent driver, the second respondent owner and the third respondent insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Hence the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,250/- as compensation under various heads. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. 4. The third respondent filed written statement, admitting the existence of a policy, but denied liability. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The petitioner/injured challenges the Award of the Tribunal under the following heads - Notional income– In the appeal memorandum it is contended that no opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to adduce oral evidence to prove his income. However, no such argument was advanced during the course of arguments. The petitioner is stated to have been working as Head Clerk, Munsiff Court, Adoor. Therefore, there would certainly have been documents to show his monthly income. However, no such argument was advanced during the course of arguments. The petitioner is stated to have been working as Head Clerk, Munsiff Court, Adoor. Therefore, there would certainly have been documents to show his monthly income. The petitioner could very well have produced his salary certificate to prove his income. However, for reasons best known to the petitioner, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate his case that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-. In the absence of any sort of evidence to prove his monthly income, the claim of the petitioner that he was drawing an amount of Rs.14,000/- per month cannot be accepted. However the case of the petitioner that he was a Government servant at the time of the incident and that he had sustained injuries in the incident are not disputed. The Act being a beneficial legislation, a liberal approach needs to be adopted. Therefore even in the complete absence of either oral or documentary evidence, the income of the petitioner can be notionally fixed on the basis of settled precedents. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian.Co.Ltd, (2011 (3) KLT Suppl. 80 (SC) = (2011) 13 SCC 236 ), the monthly income of a coolie in the year 2004 was taken to be Rs.4,500/-. The incident in this case took place in the year 2006. Therefore going by the aforesaid dictum, in the absence of any evidence or material to show the income of the petitioner and coupled with an increase of Rs.500/- per year, the income of the petitioner in the year 2006 can be fixed at Rs.5,500/-. 10. Loss of income - According to the petitioner, due to the injuries sustained by him he was unable to work for a period of six months and hence claimed an amount of Rs.98,000/-. No amount has been granted by the Tribunal under this head. It is true that no evidence was adduced by the petitioner to prove the days on which he was absent from duty. Here also it was quite possible and easy for the petitioner to produce necessary documents to show his absence from duty due to the accident. But, no documents were produced before the Tribunal. Annexure A has been produced in this appeal to show the details of the leave taken by him. Here also it was quite possible and easy for the petitioner to produce necessary documents to show his absence from duty due to the accident. But, no documents were produced before the Tribunal. Annexure A has been produced in this appeal to show the details of the leave taken by him. As per Annexure A, the petitioner is seen to have taken leave on several occasions for different durations during the period from 25/11/2006 to 09/12/2008. The incident in this case took place on 27/11/2006. Going by Annexure A, the petitioner was on earn leave for 14 days from 25/11/2006 to 08/12/2006. Therefore, even before the date of the accident, the petitioner was on leave. Hence, Annexure A cannot be relied on by the petitioner to prove his absence from duty due to the accident. 10.1. The injuries noted in Annexure A8 wound certificate relied on by the petitioner shows that he had pain, tenderness and deformity of right knee and abrasion of right elbow. In such circumstances he probably may have been absent from duty for a period of seven days and therefore loss of income for seven days can be granted to him which comes to Rs.1,283/- (Rs.5,500/30 x7). 11. Medical expenses - The petitioner claimed Rs.74,000/-towards medical bills. However, no evidence was produced to substantiate the same and hence no amount was granted by the Tribunal. In the appeal memorandum it is contended that no opportunity was given to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. Even assuming that to be true, no documents have been produced along with the appeal also to substantiate his claim under this head. Ext.A9 is the scan report of the petitioner. In the light of Ext.A10 and in the light of the injuries sustained by him and as the accident or the fact that the petitioner had sustained injuries is not disputed, in the interest of justice, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted under this head. 12. Rejection of Ext.A10 disability certificate and compensation towards loss of future prospects - The Tribunal rejected Ext.A10 disability certificate on the ground that it had not been issued by a competent authority. 12. Rejection of Ext.A10 disability certificate and compensation towards loss of future prospects - The Tribunal rejected Ext.A10 disability certificate on the ground that it had not been issued by a competent authority. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair, 2021(5) KHC 305 , submitted that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was not proper and that if Ext.A10 disability certificate was not sufficient, opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to produce satisfactory evidence. 12.1. In Manikantan (Supra) also, the disability certificate was rejected as the doctor had not been examined. It was held that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was highly irregular, improper and in flagrant violation of the dictum of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, ( 2011 (1) KLT 620 (SC) = (2011) 1 SCC 343 ) and Rule 387 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which says that the Claims Tribunal may, if it considers necessary direct any Medical Officer in a Government hospital or in a Medical College Hospital or any Board consisting of such Medical Officers to examine the injured and issue disability certificate indicating the degree and extent of the disability, if any, sustained as a result of the accident. 12.2. The conclusion of the doctor in Ext.A10 reads - “On examination, he has partial ankylosis of right knee. He is unable to squat or climb stairs. He is unable to stand for long time or walk for long distances. As per Mc Bride index, he has permanent disability of NINE (9)%.” It is not clear from Ext.A10 whether the disability sustained is permanent disability of the whole body or a limb. As held in Raj Kumar (Supra), all injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries) do not result in loss of earning capacity. The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal based on evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal based on evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). The doctor who treated the injured/claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only regarding the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education, and other factors. 12.3. In this case the petitioner is stated to be a Government servant, that is, Head Clerk in an office and therefore would be discharging his duties sitting in a chair. Therefore the disabilities referred to in Ext.A10 is not likely to have caused any loss of future prospects. Therefore even if Ext.A10 is accepted, that would not in any way help the petitioner as no evidence has come on record that due to the incident, there was any reduction of income of the petitioner or loss of earning power. Where a person is employed in a salaried job and notwithstanding the disability suffered by him on account of the injuries in the accident, if he does not suffer any reduction in salary or loss of future prospects in his employment, then he would not be entitled to any compensation for loss of earning capacity (See National Insurance Company Ltd., Kozhikode v. Anoopkumar T.K., 2014 (1) KLT 266 = 2014 KHC 13). Even in such cases, the claimant would be entitled to compensation for loss of amenities in life, considering the effect of disability on his personal life and his ability to do the personal chose in his private life. For loss of amenities, an amount of Rs.30,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal. 13. Even in such cases, the claimant would be entitled to compensation for loss of amenities in life, considering the effect of disability on his personal life and his ability to do the personal chose in his private life. For loss of amenities, an amount of Rs.30,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal. 13. It was submitted relying on the decision in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Company, ( 2021 (6) KLT 136 = 2021 (5) KHC 662 ) that even if loss of future prospects during the period the petitioner in service cannot be granted, he is certainly entitled to the loss of future prospects for his post retirement days. Due to the injuries, he would be unable to take up any post retirement jobs and hence he is entitled to compensation. Even assuming that the petitioner takes up employment post-retirement, in all probability the nature of employment would be similar to the one done by him before retirement. It cannot be expected that he would go in for some manual labour. I have already held that in the light of the injuries and the disability stated to have been sustained by him, the same has not in any way affected the discharge of his duties and in such circumstances there can be no loss of earning capacity or future prospects. The impugned Award is partly modified thus - Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount awarded by Tribunal Modified in appeal 1 Loss of earning Rs.98,000/- - Rs.1,283/- (5,500x 30/7 days) 2 Pain and sufferings Rs.60,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- (No modification) 3. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- (No modification) 4 Transport to Hospital Rs.8,000/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- (No modification) 5. Extra nourishment Rs.7,000/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- (No modification) 6. Bystander expenses Rs.8,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- (No modification) 7. Damage to clothing Rs.3,000/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- (No modification) 8. Medical expenses Rs.74,000/- - Rs.5,000/- 9. Others Rs.3,12,250/- - - (No modification) Total Rs.6,00,250/- Rs.75,000/- Rs.81,283/- Claim amount Rs.10,00,000/- In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.6,283/- (total compensation Rs.81,283/-, that is, Rs.75,000/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs.6,283/-granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the petitioner/appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.