JUDGMENT : The petitioner in OP(MV) No.2520/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Thrissur, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 20.05.2013. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 20.05.2013, at about 10.30 a.m., while the petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-49-A-2290 along Thrissur-Palakkad National Highway, and when reached near Erimayur KTDC Hotel at Wadakkenchery, a car bearing registration No.KL-08-AR--8417 driven by the 2nd 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 him serious injuries. 3. The owner and driver of the offending car were arrayed as 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the said car was arrayed as the 3rd respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement, mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage of the car involved in the accident. 5. During the trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. A copy of the insurance policy pertaining to the offending car, produced from the side of the 3rd respondent, was marked in evidence as Ext.B1. 6. After the 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-08-AR--8417 by the 2nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was found liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.1,67,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 7. Heard Sri. A.R. Nimod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Seema, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, insurance company. 8. Dissatisfied with the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 7. Heard Sri. A.R. Nimod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Seema, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, insurance company. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads, is too meager and will no way commensurate with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and is insufficient to compensate the hardships and inconveniences met by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. According to the counsel, though the petitioner suffered a disability of 12% due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the tribunal scaled down the disability to 5% without assigning any convincing reason and awarded only a nominal amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability. The learned counsel further urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, etc., is also on the lower side. In response, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is adequate and justifiable, and warrants no interference. 9. 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. A perusal of the award reveals that, for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs.9,000/-. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2013. It was mainly relying on the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner notionally at Rs.9,000/-. As there is no convincing evidence regarding the actual occupation and income of the petitioner, I am also concurring with the decision of the tribunal to assess the monthly income of the petitioner notionally on the basis of the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa. 10. However, in order to prove that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner had produced a disability certificate issued by a Doctor. 10. However, in order to prove that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner had produced a disability certificate issued by a Doctor. A perusal of the said disability certificate pressed into service from the side of the petitioner shows that he suffered a disability of 12% due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the tribunal scaled down the disability to 5%. Though some reasons are seen assigned to scale down the disability, those reasons are not fully convincing. The medical records, including the treatment records, adduced in this case reveal that the petitioner had sustained the following injuries in the accident: 1 Fracture to the frontal bone left 2 Frontal extradural haematoma left 3 Right sylvian sub arachnoid haemorrhage 4 Swelling 8 x4 cm over left parietal area. 11. Ofcourse, the above injuries sustained are grievous in nature, which would have a heavy impact on the occupational and earning capacity of the petitioner. I am not unmindful of the fact that the disability certificate pressed into service from the side of the petitioner is one issued by a single Doctor, but no steps were taken from the side of the petitioner to examine the Doctor who issued the certificate. Therefore, I am of the view that the disability noted in the disability certificate cannot be acted upon as such. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, 7% disability can reasonably be taken. As the petitioner was aged 26 at the time of the accident, the multiplier to be reckoned as 17. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,28,520/- [9000x12x17x7/100]. Already, an amount of Rs.91,800/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.36,720/- as additional compensation under the head of permanent disability. 12. Consequent to the revision in the monthly income, some enhancement is required in the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings as well. The tribunal awarded compensation under the head of the loss of earnings for a period of two months. I have already detailed the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. 12. Consequent to the revision in the monthly income, some enhancement is required in the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings as well. The tribunal awarded compensation under the head of the loss of earnings for a period of two months. I have already detailed the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. Ofcourse, those injuries are serious in nature. Therefore, nobody could be blamed if it is found that the petitioner would have been prevented from doing any work or earning any income, at least for four months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.36,000/- [9000x4] as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. Already, an amount of Rs.18,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.18,000/- as additional compensation under the head of loss of earnings. 13. The nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident itself is self-speaking regarding the pain and suffering endured by him. Considering the pain and suffering endured by him in connection with the injuries sustained in the accident as well as in connection with the treatment procedures undergone by him, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded under the head of pain and suffering. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.20,000/- as additional compensation under the head of pain and sufferings. 14. While awarding compensation, the hardships and inconvenience met by the petitioner due to the accident also cannot be overlooked. As evident from the treatment records, the petitioner had undergone 10 days of inpatient treatment. Considering the hardships and inconvenience endured by him, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.20,000/- has to be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, entitling the petitioner to get an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the said head as well. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.84,720/- (Rupees eighty four thousand seven hundred and twenty only) [36,720 + 18000 + 20000+10000] 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.