JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 01 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Thodupuzha, 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 28.07.2017. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 28.07.2017, at 7.50 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling in an autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-37-9367 from Pampadumpara to Kattappana, driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and when the autorikshaw reached near Aanakuthy bus stop, the autorikshaw overturned onto the road. Due to the same, the petitioner as well as other passengers in the autorikshaw sustained serious injuries. 3. The owner cum driver of the autorikshaw was arrayed as 1 st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said autorikshaw was arrayed as the 2 nd respondent. The 2 nd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the autorikshaw involved in the accident. Petitioner's evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A25. The documents produced from the side of the respondents were marked as Ext. B1 and B2. 4. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorikhaw bearing registration No.KL-37-9367 by the 1 st respondent, and being the insurer, the 2 nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 34,51,631/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1 st appellant/original appellant died, and hence, his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants. 6. I heard Sri. Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sebastian Varghese, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 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. Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sebastian Varghese, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 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 submitted that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, though the petitioner had sustained 100% disability, the tribunal omitted to make any addition to the actual income of the petitioner towards future prospects and awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, the insurance company, urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is reasonable and adequate, and warrants no interference. 8. From a perusal of the impugned award, it is gatherable that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 16,000/-. In the petition, it was claimed that the petitioner was a Mason by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs. 16,000/- at the time of the accident. When the petitioner was examined as PW1, he sticks on the stand that at the time of the accident, he was a Mason by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs. 16,000/-. No contra evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the side of the respondents to disprove the contention of the petitioner regarding his occupation and income. Moreover, the tribunal placed reliance mainly on a certificate issued by a construction company which is marked in evidence as Ext. A25 to assess the income of the petitioner at Rs. 16,000/-. Notably, in the present appeal, no cross-objection is seen filed from the side of the respondent challenging the assessment of income made by the tribunal. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the income assessed by the tribunal 9. In order to prove that the petitioner had sustained 100% permanent disability, the disability certificate issued by a medical board is produced and marked in evidence as Ext. A21. As evident from Ext.A21, the petitioner sustained 100% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In order to prove that the petitioner had sustained 100% permanent disability, the disability certificate issued by a medical board is produced and marked in evidence as Ext. A21. As evident from Ext.A21, the petitioner sustained 100% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner justifies the assessment of 100% of permanent disability made by the competent medical board. Neverthless, the tribunal omitted to make any addition to the income of the petitioner towards his future prospects. As the petitioner suffered a permanent disability of 100%, the tribunal should have made an addition to the actual income of the petitioner towards future prospects, especially when it is established that the injuries sustained by the petitioner is having a heavy bearing on his future earning capacity. Therefore, I am of the view that in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 ] , an addition of 40% is to be made towards the actual income of the petitioner. After making such an addition, the income of the petitioner will come to Rs. 22,400/-. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged 33 years at the time of the accident. As evident from the records, after the accident, the petitioner became a wheelchair bound. As the petitioner was aged only 33 years at the time of the accident, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] , the multiplier to be reckoned is 16. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 43,00,800/- (Rs. 22,400/- x 12 x 16 x 100/100) as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Already an amount of Rs. 30,72,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs 12,28,800/- (Rupees Twelve lakh twenty eight thousand eight hundred only) as additional compensation under the head of loss of permanent disability. 10. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no interference is warranted. After deducting the said amount, the petitioners are entitled to get an amount of Rs 12,28,800/- (Rupees Twelve lakh twenty eight thousand eight hundred only) as additional compensation under the head of loss of permanent disability. 10. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no interference is warranted. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs 12,28,800/- (Rupees Twelve lakh twenty eight thousand eight hundred 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 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 in accordance with rules. In the matter of apportionment of the enhanced amount, the tribunal shall pass appropriate orders.