JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1326/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, 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 Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.02.2016. According to the petitioner, on 24.02.2016 at about 5.30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, a jeep bearing reg.no.KL-18-Q-981 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1 st respondent is the owner, the 2 nd respondent is the driver and 3 rd 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.8,07,000/- limited to Rs.6,00,000/-. 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 A15 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 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.6,87,401/- 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 Sri.R.Sudhish, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd 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. According to him, the petitioner was running a Chicken Stall, earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.9000/-. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was running a Chicken Stall, earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.9000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ext.A15 a membership receipt issued from the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi Ulliyeri Unit showing that he is a member of the said association and was running a Chicken Stall. 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 2016 will come to Rs.10,500/-. Since, the petitioner it has proved that he was running a Chicken Stall, his notional income is fixed at Rs.12,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: • Fracture both bone right leg with fracture lateral malleolus, segmental fracture of fibula and calcaneal tuberosity. 13. Ext.C1 disability certificate issued by the doctor appointed by the Tribunal shows that the petitioner suffered 28% permanent physical disability. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 14%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. The law is settled that, if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, the remedy is to refer him to a medical board or higher Authority.(See Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others 2021 (5) KHC 305 ). Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability from what is shown in the disability certificate. I do find any grounds to disbelieve the said disability and as such the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is fixed as 28%. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 26 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. I do find any grounds to disbelieve the said disability and as such the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is fixed as 28%. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 26 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards 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 17, 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.9,59,616/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.36,000/- being the income for 4 months @ Rs.9000/-. 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 8 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of earnings' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.96000/- (12000 x 8 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.30,000/- 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 26 days. In the meantime, he had undergone two 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’ and 'loss of amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.80000/- and Rs.60000/- respectively. 18. Even from the impugned award it is revealed that the Tribunal noted that the injuries sustained in the accident has left some scar and disfiguration on the right leg of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that because of the injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner could not walk freely and the same has affected his marriage prospects also. Considering the facts, a sum of Rs.50000/- is awarded on the head ‘disfiguration and loss of marriage prospects’. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Considering the facts, a sum of Rs.50000/- is awarded on the head ‘disfiguration and loss of marriage prospects’. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.15,59,977/-, 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 36000 96000 2 Transport to hospital 7500 7500 3 Damage to clothings 1000 1000 4 Extra nourishment 5200 5200 5 Medical expense 279661 279661 6 Bystander expense 21000 21000 7 Pain and suffering 50000 80000 8 Loss of amenities 30000 60000 9 Loss of income due to disability 257040 959616 10 Disfiguration and loss of marriage prospects Nil 50000 Total 687401 1559977 Enhanced Rs. 872576 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.15,59,977/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Seven only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 212 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%) 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.