JUDGMENT : (JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.) The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2451 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 03.01.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 03.01.2016, at 9.30 a.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-43-E-6706 through Chalakudy - Malakkapara S.H. Public Road, and when reached at Mukkupuzha, a car bearing registration No.KL-7-AW-1819 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle on which the petitioner was riding. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road causing severe injuries on him. 3. The owner and driver of the offending car were arrayed as 1 st and 2 nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident. Petitioner's evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A10. No evidence, whatsoever was produced from the side of the respondents. 4. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KL-7-AW-1819 by the 2 nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3 rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 6,38,130/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 5. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides. 6. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 5. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides. 6. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads, particularly under the head of permanent disability is too meager and the tribunal awarded such a meager amount without considering the gravity and nature of the injuries sustained to the petitioner in the accident as well as the consequent hardships and inconveniences met by him. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, the insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is just, fair, and reasonable and hence, warrants no interference. 7. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,000/-. Though in the petition, it was claimed that the petitioner was a tile worker at the time of the accident and earning a daily income of Rs. 1,000/-, no evidence whatsoever has been produced to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation and income. Anyhow, considering the year of the accident and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] , the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,000/-. I am of the view that the notional income assessed by the tribunal is justifiable and no interference is warranted in that regard. Moreover, relying on the disability certificate, which is marked in evidence as Ext.X1, the tribunal entered into a finding that the petitioner has suffered a disability of 7% due to the injuries sustained in the accident and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,57,080/- under the head of permanent disability. I find no scope for any interference in the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of permanent disability as the same is justifiable and reasonable. 1,57,080/- under the head of permanent disability. I find no scope for any interference in the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of permanent disability as the same is justifiable and reasonable. Anyhow, from the medical and treatment records, it is evident that the petitioner had suffered Proximal tibia fracture (shatzker type VI) with compartment syndrome right leg in the accident and ORIF right proximal tibia was done under SA. Of course, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. Furthermore, it is evident that the petitioner underwent 37 days of inpatient treatment. In the said background, a reasonable amount must be awarded under the head of loss of earnings. However, the tribunal awarded loss of earnings only for a period of six months. Given the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner would have been prevented from doing any job or earning any income for at least for eight months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 22,000/- (Rs. 11,000/- x 2) under the head of loss of earnings. 8. The nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner itself is self-speaking regarding the pain and sufferings endured by him in connection with the accident. Already an amount of Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. I am of the view that the amount awarded by the tribunal under the said head is on the lower side. Hence, an additional compensation of Rs. 15,000/- is to be awarded under the said head as well. 9. Similarly, as the petitioner had undergone 37 days of inpatient treatment, the inconvenience and hardships met by him in connection with the accident and the treatment procedure undergone by him should not have been overlooked by the tribunal while awarding compensation. I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life is on the lower side. Hence, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is to be awarded as additional compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 10. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs. Hence, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is to be awarded as additional compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 10. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs. 47,000/- (Rs.22,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) has to be added towards the compensation awarded by the tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 47,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit after deducting interest for a period of 227 days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as directed by this Court on 10.01.2022 in C.M. Appln. No.1/2022. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.