JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) Nos.1098/2013 and 1100/2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Alappuzha (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by common Award dated 05/08/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions. 2. According to the claim petitioners, on 01/04/2013 at 06:15 p.m., while they were travelling in tempo traveller bearing registration no.KL-36/3223 driven by the second respondent through Kattappana – Thodupuzha road and when they reached near Cheruthoni bridge, the vehicle after knocking down three pedestrians fell down from the bridge in to the river, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. 3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. 4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying liability. It was contended that the driver had no valid license at the time of the accident. 5. OP(MV) Nos.1097/2013, 1098/2013, 1099/2013, 1100/2013 and 1101/2013 were jointly tried. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A46 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ?1,32,700/- in OP(MV) No.1098/2013 and ?91,950/- in OP(MV)No.1100/2013 together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. M.A.C.A No.749 of 2020 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner. Notional income. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a 55 year old driver was earning ?7,000/- per month. 8. Heard both sides. M.A.C.A No.749 of 2020 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner. Notional income. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a 55 year old driver was earning ?7,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ?5,000/-, which is quite low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 . Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that no documents have been produced to substantiate the claim and therefore the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable calling for no interference by this Court. The fact that the claim petitioner is a driver is not seen disputed. The claim is for ?7,000/- only. Therefore, the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer objects to the fixing of the notional income going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), as per which the income of a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ?9,000/-. 9.1. It is true that it is only an amount of ?7,000/- that is claimed in the petition. But it is just compensation that needs to be awarded. The fact that the claim petitioner is a driver is not disputed. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the income of even a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ?9,000/-. Therefore, the claim petitioner being a driver, I find that the notional income can be fixed at ?9,000/-. Pain and suffering 10. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries: “1. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm on the forehead. 2. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm on the right side of scalp. 3. Fracture on the 3 rd rib left side and fracture necky scapula with extension to the body on the left side.” He was hospitalised for a period of 9 days. Therefore, I find that an amount of ? 40,000 /- as claimed would be just and reasonable. Loss of amenities 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of ? 25,000 /- under this head would be just and reasonable. Percentage of disability 12. Therefore, I find that an amount of ? 40,000 /- as claimed would be just and reasonable. Loss of amenities 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of ? 25,000 /- under this head would be just and reasonable. Percentage of disability 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner referring to Ext.A27 that the percentage of disability that was fixed is 12%. However, the Tribunal fixed it as 9%, which is not right in the light of the avocation of the claim petitioner: Ext.A27 disability certificate reads: “ Disability certificate This is to certify that Mr.Jayaprash @ 57 years Nedunagttu House, SL Puram P.O., Kanjikuzhy, Cherthala was admitted in District Hospital, Idukki on 01/04/2013 following alleged RTA. He sustained following injuries- 1. Fracture 3 rd rib (Lt) side (left side) 2. Fracture neck of scapula with extension to the body (comminuted) left side. On 4/4/2013 he admitted in General Hospital Cherthala. He was treated conservatively, and analgesics patient is working as NREGS worker and an outside labourer. Now the patient complaints of pain (Lt) shoulder. Inability to Abduct the shoulder and pain at rest and on lifting objects. Examination finding Area of the body- (Lt) shoulder Area of movement Normal rom Actual rom Percentage of loss Abduction 0-180 0-150 30 Percentage of disability = loss of movement x 0.3 As per the guide lines for evaluation of various disability and procedure for certification by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Patient has 12% (Twelve percentage) of permanent disability.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the disability caused and taking into account the fact that he is a driver and in the light of the dictum in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, AIR Online 2010 SC 125 , the functional disability is fixed at 12 %. 13. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: S. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in ?) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in ?) Modified in appeal (in ?) 1. Loss of earning 49,000/- 30,000/- 54,000/- (9,000/- x 6) 2. Expenses towards treatment till date under several heads such as medicine, transportation, x-ray and scanning charges, operation expenses, room rent, bystander etc. 1,00,000/- 12,800/- 12,800/- (No modification) 3. Expenses for further treatment 50,000/- - Nil (No modification) 4. Damage to clothing and articles 3,000/- 500/- 500/- (No modification) 5. Pain and sufferings 40,000/- 20,000/- 40,000/- 6. Expenses towards treatment till date under several heads such as medicine, transportation, x-ray and scanning charges, operation expenses, room rent, bystander etc. 1,00,000/- 12,800/- 12,800/- (No modification) 3. Expenses for further treatment 50,000/- - Nil (No modification) 4. Damage to clothing and articles 3,000/- 500/- 500/- (No modification) 5. Pain and sufferings 40,000/- 20,000/- 40,000/- 6. Loss of amenities in life 70,000/- 10,000/- 25,000/- 7. Disfiguration 6,000/- - Nil (No modification) 8. Permanent disability 2,00,000/- - Nil (No modification) 9. Loss of earning power 2,00,000/- 59,400/- 1,42,560/- (9,000/- x 12 x 11 x 12/100) Total 7,18,000/- claim limited to 7,00,000/- 1,32,700/- 2,74,860/- M.A.C.A. No.1433 of 2020 14. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner: Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, NREG Worker was earning ?6,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ?4,500/-. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) the income of even a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ?9,000/- and hence the income may be fixed accordingly. 15. Therefore, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income is fixed at ? 9,000 /-. Pain and suffering 16. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries: “1. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm on the dorsal aspect of the left hand. 2. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on the left forearm. 3. Fracture 2 nd rib right side.” 16.1. She was hospitalised for a period of 8 days. Therefore, an amount of ? 25,000 /- under this head would be just and reasonable. Loss of amenities 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of ? 15,000 /- under this head would be just and reasonable. 18. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner submits that the percentage of disability that has been fixed is incorrect and that it ought to have been fixed as per Ext.A40 disability certificate. However, on going through the impugned Award, I find that reasons have been given by the Tribunal and the functional disability has been fixed taking into account the injury sustained and disability caused. I find that the Tribunal was right in fixing the disability and therefore no interference into the said aspect is required. 19. However, on going through the impugned Award, I find that reasons have been given by the Tribunal and the functional disability has been fixed taking into account the injury sustained and disability caused. I find that the Tribunal was right in fixing the disability and therefore no interference into the said aspect is required. 19. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: S. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in ?) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in ?) Modified in appeal (in ?) 1. Loss of earning 42,000/- 13,500/- 27,000/- (9,000/- x 3) 2. Expenses towards treatment till date under several heads such as medicine, transportation, x-ray and scanning charges, operation expenses, room rent, bystander etc. 80,000/- 10,150/- 10,150/- (No modification) 3. Expenses for further treatment 40,000/- - Nil (No modification) 4. Damage to clothing and articles 3,000/- 500/- 500/- (No modification) 5. Pain and sufferings 40,000/- 20,000/- 25,000/- 6. Loss of amenities in life 40,000/- 10,000/- 15,000/- 7. Disfiguration 6,000/- - Nil (No modification) 8. Permanent disability 60,000/- - Nil (No modification) 9. Loss of earning power 60,000/- 37,800/- 75,600/- (9,000/- x 12 x 14 x 5/100) Total 3,71,000/- (limited to 3,00,000/-) 91,950/- 1,53,250/- In the result, M.A.C.A No.749 of 2020 is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ?1,42,160/- (total compensation = ?2,74,860/- that is, ?1,32,700/- granted by the Tribunal + ?1,42,160/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 203 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. M.A.C.A. No.1433 of 2020 is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ?61,300/- (total compensation = ?1,53,250/- that is, ?91,950/- granted by the Tribunal + ?61,300/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 253 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.