JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1465 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, 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 02.04.2019. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 02.04.2019, at about 7.15 a.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-75-F-4568 through Padanilam- Narikkuni road and reached near a place called Kuzhiprakunnu, a car bearing registration No. KL-11-AN-8055 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. 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 of the car 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. 4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A12. No evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the respondents. 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-11-AN-8055 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. 3,64,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% 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. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 7. A perusal of the award reveals that, for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/- Though in the petition, it was contented that the petitioner was a tile worker earning a monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of the accident, no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation and income. 25,000/- at the time of the accident, no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation and income. Anyhow, the tribunal, by applying the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 12,000/- notionally. I find no reason to interfere with the said assessment made by the tribunal regarding the income of the petitioner. 8. In order to prove that the petitioner suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a certificate issued by a doctor is produced and marked in evidence as Ext. A10. In Ext. A10 disability certificate, it is noted that the petitioner suffered a permanent disability of 10% due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the tribunal scaled down the said disability and adopted only 5% disability while computing compensation under the head of permanent disability. However, no convincing reason is seen assigned by the tribunal for scaling down the percentage of disability assessed by the doctor. I am cognizant of the fact that the doctor who issued the disability certificate was not examined from the side of the petitioner. Nevertheless, the non-examination of the doctor who issued the disability certificate itself is not a reason to scale down the disability noted in the disability certificate without assigning convincing reason. The treatment as well as other medical records adduced in evidence in this case, reveal that the petitioner had suffered type I open fracture of both legs in the accident. Of course, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. Therefore, I am of the view that 8% of permanent disability can reasonably be taken for determining the compensation to be awarded under the head of permanent disability. The petitioner was aged only 20 years 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 18. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,07,360/- (Rs. 12,000/- x 12 x 18 x 8/100). Already an amount of Rs. 1,29,600/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,07,360/- (Rs. 12,000/- x 12 x 18 x 8/100). Already an amount of Rs. 1,29,600/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 77,760/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand seven hundred and sixty only) under the head of permanent disability. 9. While coming back to the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings, it can be seen that, the tribunal awarded loss of earnings only for a period of five 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 work or earning any income at least for a period of nine months. Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled get an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- (Rs. 12,000/- x 9) as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. Already an amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of earnings. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty-eight thousand only) as additional compensation under the said head as well. 10. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are self-speaking regarding the pain and suffering endured by him in connection with the accident. As evident from the treatment records, the petitioner underwent two major surgeries as part of the treatment. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 75,000/- is to be awarded as compensation under the head of pain and suffering. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs. 60,000/-, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as additional compensation under the said head. 11. 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. 1,40,760/- (Rs. 77,760/- + Rs. 48,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-) 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. Hence, an amount of Rs. 1,40,760/- (Rs. 77,760/- + Rs. 48,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-) 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. 1,40,760/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand seven hundred and sixty 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 and proportionate costs before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.