JUDGMENT : (JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.) The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 1285 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Alappuzha, 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 12.08.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 12.08.2016, at 9.30 p.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-32-C-1702 through the eastern extremity of Alappuzha - Ernakulam National Highway, a car bearing registration No. KL-33-A-1060, driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle which the petitioner was riding. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road causing serious injuries on him. 3. The driver and owner of the offending car were arrayed as the 1 st and 2 nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the car was arrayed as the 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent contested the petition by filing written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. However, the 3 rd respondent admitted insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident. 4. During trial, from the side of the petitioner Exts. A1 to A9 were produced and marked, but no oral evidence was adduced. The disability certificate issued by the medical board was marked as Ext. X1. No evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the respondent. 5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KL-33-A-1060 by the 1 st respondent, and being the insurer, the 3 rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 2,89,220/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 6. I heard Sri. A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Gireesh Varma, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7. 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. 6. I heard Sri. A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Gireesh Varma, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7. 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 is too meager, and such an amount was awarded without considering the gravity and nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondent would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is just, fair, and reasonable and warrants no interference. 8. A perusal of the 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. 11,250/-. In the petition, it was claimed that the petitioner was a Mason by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. Apart from taking such a contention, no convincing evidence was produced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate his contention regarding his actual income. However, from the side of the petitioner, an identity card issued by the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board, showing that he was a member of the welfare fund constituted for the benefit of the construction site employees was produced. It was mainly taking note of the said fact, the tribunal entered into a conclusion that the petitioner was a Mason by profession at the time of the accident and earning a monthly income of Rs. 11,250/-. I am of the view that the income assessed by the tribunal is reasonable. 9. In order to prove that the petitioner sustained permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a disability certificate issued by a competent medical board was produced and marked as Ext.X1. A bare perusal of Ext. X1 reveals that the petitioner suffered disability of 12% due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Regardless of the percentage of disability noted by the medical board, the tribunal scaled down the said disability and took only 6% of disability. No convincing reasons, whatsoever, are seen assigned by the tribunal for scaling down the disability noted by the medical board. Regardless of the percentage of disability noted by the medical board, the tribunal scaled down the said disability and took only 6% of disability. No convincing reasons, whatsoever, are seen assigned by the tribunal for scaling down the disability noted by the medical board. I am of the considered view that the tribunal ought to have acted upon the disability certificate issued by the medical board and should have taken 12% of disability for the purpose of calculating the compensation under the head of permanent disability. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. The petitioner had suffered the following injuries in the accident; ? Segmental fracture shaft of left tibia and fibula; ? tenderness and swelling left leg with inability to bear weight; ? abrasion over both legs, right index and middle finger. It is apparent that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are very grevious in nature, and the available evidence indicates that after the accident, the petitioner became a wheelchair-bound man. A conjoint reading of the medical evidence adduced in this case and the disability certificate clearly justifies the assessment of 12% disability. The petitioner was 36 years old at the time of the accident. Therefore, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] , the multiplier to be reckoned is 15. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,43,000/- [Rs. 11,250/- x 12 x 15 x 12/100]. Already an amount of Rs. 1,21,500/- has been awarded as compensation under the head of permanent disability. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 1,21,500/- (Rupees One lakh twenty one thousand and five hundred only) under the said head. 10. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that a reasonable amount should have been awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of earnings also. However, without taking note of the serious nature of the injuries sustained, the tribunal awarded compensation for loss of earnings only for a period of three months. Of course, the period of loss of earnings taken is on the lower side. However, without taking note of the serious nature of the injuries sustained, the tribunal awarded compensation for loss of earnings only for a period of three months. Of course, the period of loss of earnings taken is on the lower side. The nature of the injuries suggests that the petitioner would have been prevented from doing any work or earning any income, at least for a period of six months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 67,500/- [Rs. 11,250/-x 6] under the said head. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs. 33,750/- by the tribunal, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 33,750/- (Rupees Thirty-three thousand seven hundred and fifty only) under the head of loss of earnings. 11. Moreover, 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. Of course, the same has to be compensated adequately. However, regardless of the nature of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, only a meager amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain and sufferings. I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has to be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs. 15,000/-, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-five thousand only) under the head of pain and sufferings. 12. As I have already stated, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has become a wheelchair-bound man. The inconveniences and hardships caused to him could not be overlooked while awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. However, only a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- is seen awarded by the tribunal under the said head. Of course, interference is required regarding the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the said head. I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- has to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs. 5,000/-, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) as additional compensation under the said head. 13. I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- has to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs. 5,000/-, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) as additional compensation under the said head. 13. 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. 2,15,250/- (Rs. 1,21,500/- + Rs. 33,750/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-) has to be added towards the total 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. 2,15,250/- (Rupees Two lakh fifteen thousand two hundred fifty 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. 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. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the tribunal shall, after deducting the liability of the appellant/petitioner towards the court fee, disburse the compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with rules.