JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 570/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.08.2010. According to the petitioner, on 31.08.2010 at about 8 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a Maruti car bearing Reg.No.KL-24/7148 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle and as a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1 st respondent is the driver cum owner and the 2 nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A23. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,58,846/- (rounded to Rs.1,58,850/-) and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. Heard Smt. Anchal C. Vijayan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Lawrence D Cunha, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. As per the claim petition, the petitioner was working as rubber tapper, earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. 11. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. As per the claim petition, the petitioner was working as rubber tapper, earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. 11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ] , the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra) , the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7,500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: 1. Fracture Type III compound both bones right leg. 2. Heel pad avulation. 3. Internal fixation done. From Ext.A23 discharge summary it is revealed that, because of the fracture to the tibia iIlizarov ring was fixed and it was removed only on 14.06.2016. 13. As per Exhibit A18 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 30% permanent physical disability. It was issued by department orthopaedics, Medical college Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, because of the injuries sustained in the accident there was shortening of 10 cm on the right leg and as such he being a rubber tapper by profession, his functional disability to be taken as 100%. In Ext.A18, it is noted that the petitioner walks with difficulty with support and he had difficulty in climbing stairs and getting down stairs. He is not able to squat. He has difficulty in carrying out activities of daily routine. It is also noted in Ext.A18 that he could not continue his profession as a rubber tapper. In Ext.A18, it is noted that the petitioner walks with difficulty with support and he had difficulty in climbing stairs and getting down stairs. He is not able to squat. He has difficulty in carrying out activities of daily routine. It is also noted in Ext.A18 that he could not continue his profession as a rubber tapper. In light of the above findings in Ext.A18, I am convinced that, though the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is only 30%, as assessed in Ext.A18, his functional disability as a rubber tapper is much more. Therefore, considering the facts his functional disability is fixed at 50%, for the purpose of assessing the loss of disability. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 65 years. Therefore, there is no scope for any future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and the multiplier to be applied is 7 as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] . In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.6,30,000/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.24,000/- being the income for 6 months @ Rs.4,000/- and in addition to the same, another Rs.12,000/- was awarded, being the income for 6 months @Rs.2,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 12 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (7500 x 12 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs. 20,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs. 1000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 33 days in different spells. In the meantime he had undergone surgeries also. 20,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs. 1000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 33 days in different spells. In the meantime he had undergone surgeries also. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, 50,000/- and 5,000/- respectively. 18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 19. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.8,68,050/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of earning &Partial loss of earning Rs.24,000/- Rs.12,000/- Rs.90,000/- 2 Transport to hospital Rs.2000/- Rs.2,000/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs.1000/- Rs.5,000/- 4 Damage to clothing and articles Rs.1000/- Rs.1000/- 5 Medical expenses and bystander expenses Rs.31,796/- Rs.8,250/- Rs.31,796/- Rs.8,250/- 6 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/- 7 Compensation for permanent disability Rs.28,800/- Rs.6,30,000/- 8 Compensation for loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.1,58,846/- (rounded to Rs.1,58,850/-) Rs.8,68,046/- rounded to Rs.8,68,050/- Enhanced Rs.7,09,200/- 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and 2 nd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.8,68,050/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixty eight thousand and fifty only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 107 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.