JUDGMENT : C.S. Sudha, J. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.441/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 20/09/2019. The respondent herein is the third respondent in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claim petitioner, on 15/12/2016 at about 08:30 a.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-45-H-1831 through Irinjalakuda – Kodungallur public road and when he reached at Karupadana Palli nada, car bearing registration no.KL-07-T-777 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he 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 negligence on the part of the second respondent. The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the 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 ?2,26,600/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 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 notional income of ?15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is against the dictum in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. 8. Heard both sides. 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 notional income of ?15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is against the dictum in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2021 (5) KHC 662 wherein the income after retirement of the claimant was fixed as half of the monthly income that he was drawing while in service. Ext.A11 certificate will show that he was earning ?52,128/- per month and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the notional income at ?15,000/- in the light of the dictum in Raju Sebastian (Supra), goes the argument. 9.1. Ext.A11 shows that the claim petitioner was drawing ?52,128/- as his salary. In the light of the judgment dated 18/08/2025 of this Court in MACA No.576 of 2020 ( Surendran v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. ) , I find that the notional income for the period after his retirement can be fixed as ? 26,000 /- per month. Loss of earnings 10. An amount of ?3,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal did not grant any amount under this head. Hence the learned counsel for the claim petitioner submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in not awarding any amount when evidence on record shows that he was on leave for three months. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that there is no evidence to show that there was any loss of earnings and hence the Tribunal was right in not awarding any amount. Therefore, no interference is called for. 10.1. It is true that the claim petitioner was in service and there is no evidence to show that there was any loss of income while he was in service. However, the materials on record show that he had availed three months leave pursuant to the accident. This leave as pointed out by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner could have been availed for some other purpose. Therefore, I find that an amount of ? 50,000 /- in the facts and circumstances of the case would be just and reasonable. Permanent disability 11. This leave as pointed out by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner could have been availed for some other purpose. Therefore, I find that an amount of ? 50,000 /- in the facts and circumstances of the case would be just and reasonable. Permanent disability 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that as per Ext.A8 disability certificate, the percentage of disability has been assessed as 13.35%. However, the Tribunal wrongly referred to the disability fixed by the doctor as 9.45% and consequently scaled down the functional disability to 5%, which is apparently wrong in the light of the materials on record. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that it is the functional disability that has been fixed and therefore, there is no infirmity calling for an interference. 11.1. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries- “1. Fracture (Rt) tibial condyle sctzker type VI. 2. Fracture proximal phalanx of (Rt) big toe.” 11.2. Ext.A8 disability certificate reads thus- “ DISABILITY CERTIFICATE 8/12/17 This is to certify that Mr. Manojkumar, 50, s/o Velayudhan, Thekkethala, P.O. Irinjalakuda, following alleged RTA on 15/12/16 was admitted on 15/12/16 in Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital, Trichur as HP No. S 552317. 1.Fracture Rt Tibial Condyle Sctzker Type VI. 2.Fracture Left Temporomandibular joint. 3. Fracture Proximal Phalanx of Rt Big toe. 4. Nail avulsion of Rt Big toe. and managed by ORIF and discharged on 30/12/16 Now on clinical and radiological examination he is having 1. Fracture Rt Tibial Lateral Condyle malunited with 30% fibrous and rest bony union with implants in rt knee. 2. Anterolateral instability of right knee. 2. Limitation of flexion of right knee from 90 deg and lateral rotation of rt knee from 10 deg due to soft tissue fibrosis and adhesions at injured site and partial ankylosis of right knee with pain on terminal degrees. 3. Weakness of right knee extensors of 20% and flexors of 20% due to musculotendinous injuries at fracture, site 4. Thin adherent ugly scar on rt leg 10 cms. Functionally he cannot squat, sit cross legged and is having difficuty to climb up and down, to stand on right lower limb for long to kneel, to run, jump, walk on uneven grounds, to drive auto. Thin adherent ugly scar on rt leg 10 cms. Functionally he cannot squat, sit cross legged and is having difficuty to climb up and down, to stand on right lower limb for long to kneel, to run, jump, walk on uneven grounds, to drive auto. He is assessed to have a permanent disability as per National Guidelines as 1. Right Lower Limb :- a. Mobility:- i) Right Knee :- ROM:-6% Strength :- 3% Total =8.8% b.Stability :- 27% Total :- 30(.8.8X 60/90) =30+5.86= =35.86% Extras; Fibrous union, Scar, pain =3 Total for Right Lower Limb =38.16% Total for whole body in relation to right lower limb =38.16x35 =13.35% He is assessed to have a permanent disability for whole body as per National Guidelines as 13.35% (Thirteen point thirty five) only .” Therefore, the finding in paragraph 13 of the impugned Award that the doctor has assessed the whole body disability as 9.45% is apparently incorrect. The total whole body disability has been assessed as 13.35%. Therefore, taking into account the disability caused, the functional disability can be fixed as 10 %. Loss of amenities 12. An amount of ?50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of ?25,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of ? 45,000 /- would be just and reasonable under this head. 13. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in ?) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in ?) Modified in appeal (in ?) 1. Loss of earnings 3,00,000/- Nil 50,000/- 2. Transportation expenses 10,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/- (No modification) 3. Damage to clothing 5,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- (No modification) 4. Extra nourishment 10,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- (No modification) 5. Bystander's expenses 10,000/- 4,500/- 4,500/- (No modification) 6. Medical expenses 1,50,000/- 60,090/- 60,090/- (No modification) 7. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 50,000/- 50,000/- (No modification) 8. Permanent disability 2,00,000/- 81,000/- 2,80,800/- (26,000/- x 10/100 x 12 x 9) 9. Loss of earning power 3,00,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 10. Loss of amenities 50,000/- 25,000/- 45,000/- 11. Disfiguration 50,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 12. Anticipated medical expense 50,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 13. Mental dejection and unhappiness in life 50,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) Total 14,85,000/- is limited to 6,00,000/- 2,26,590/- rounded to 2,26,600/- 4,96,390/- In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ? Disfiguration 50,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 12. Anticipated medical expense 50,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 13. Mental dejection and unhappiness in life 50,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) Total 14,85,000/- is limited to 6,00,000/- 2,26,590/- rounded to 2,26,600/- 4,96,390/- In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ? 2,69,790 /- (total compensation = ?4,96,390/- that is, ?2,26,600/- granted by the Tribunal + ?2,69,790/- 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 142 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 petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.