JUDGMENT : (C. Pratheep Kumar, J.) The petitioner in OP(MV).1215/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant. He filed the OP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.8.2005. According to the petitioner, on 28.8.2005, at about 11.00 a.m., while he was driving his Maruti car through the Kottayam-Ernakulam road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-07-R-5155 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the car and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. 2. In this case the petitioner sustained T-shape fracture of acetabulam with posterior wall fracture in addition to pain and tenderness over right knee. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period of 63 days on two occasions in the Medical Trust hospital, as revealed from Exts.A15 and 16 discharge summaries. From Ext.A14 discharge summary, it is revealed that he was admitted in Chazhikkadu hospital, Thodupuzha on 9.4.2007 for Ostero arthritis right hip treatment and surgery was conducted and the hip was replaced totally and then he was discharged on 23.4.2007. From Exts.A15 and A16 it is also revealed that “closed reduction and upper tibial skeletal traction done under GA, Gastrosurgery consultation given for abdominal pain CT abdomen – Normal study, ORIF done with extended illeofemoral approach post column fixed with 9 holed Recomplate and 6 screws, Anterior column 5 holed Recomplate and 4 screws roof fixed with 2 K wires. Patient had collection haematoma at wound site, wound wash given for the same. 3. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,15,087/-, major portion of which, namely Rs.3,17,487/- was medical expense supported by bills. Out of the remaining amount, Rs.40,000/- was for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.5000/- each towards extra nourishment, together for transportation and damage to clothing and compensation for leave. Another Rs.12,600/- was awarded on the head bystander's expenses. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this Appeal. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was referred to a medical Board in the Government Medical College, Ernakulam. After examining the petitioner, the Medical Board sent a disability certificate assessing his permanent physical disability at 15%. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this Appeal. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was referred to a medical Board in the Government Medical College, Ernakulam. After examining the petitioner, the Medical Board sent a disability certificate assessing his permanent physical disability at 15%. Since the said disability certificate was issued by the medical board, I find no grounds to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, the disability of the petitioner is fixed as 15%. 5. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged 45, getting monthly salary of Rs.12,958/-. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 30% of the income is to be added towards future prospects and multiplier to be applied is 14. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, since the petitioner retired at the age of 60, there will be reduction in his income only after the age of 60 and hence, the multiplier to be applied should be that of the year of his retirement. He has also relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., 2021 (6) KLT 136 , in support of his argument. 6. In the above decision, in paragraph 8, the learned judge held that: “.....From the materials available on record, it can be seen that, despite the injuries sustained by the appellant, he continued in his employment and the finding of the Tribunal that he has not sustained any loss of earning capacity during the period of his service with the Kerala Water Authority is a probable view. In my view it is a sustainable finding as he could continue in the service upto his retirement age at 56. Consequently, the question of loss of earning power would arise only for the period after his retirement.” 7. Thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to assess the loss of disability by taking about 50% of the salary as notional income and applying the multiplier 9, though the victim was aged 50 and the normal multiplier to be applied as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] -(DB) was 13. 8. Thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to assess the loss of disability by taking about 50% of the salary as notional income and applying the multiplier 9, though the victim was aged 50 and the normal multiplier to be applied as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] -(DB) was 13. 8. However, in the decision in Dinesh Singh v. Bajaj Allianz Genl.Insurance Co.Ltd., 2014 (9) SCC 241 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the loss of income of an Engineer employed in a Company, in which the High Court denied compensation on the head 'loss of earning' on the ground that he has not sustained any loss of future income as he has subsequently took up another employment, held that, once permanent disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its impact on employment/ profession of the claimant, the compensation has to be awarded. In paragraph 9 and 10, the Apex Court held thus: “9. The Tribunal taking into consideration the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs. 12,840/- and considering his young age at 24, applied the multiplier 17 and having regard to the 60% permanent disability suffered by him, arrived the compensation towards future loss of earnings at Rs. 15,72,000/-. However, while agreeing that the appellant that as per Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he suffered 80% permanent disability, taking into consideration the subsequent employment of the appellant in Industrial Development Bank of India as a Grade - B Officer, held that the appellant did not suffer any loss of future earnings on account of his permanent disability, and accordingly, disallowed the claim of the appellant under the head 'loss of earnings'. 10. We have considered the material placed before us, particularly the evidence of the Doctor, who stated that the appellant suffered 60% disability of the total body, and in his cross - examination denied the suggestion that the appellant does not require any further treatment. The fact that the appellant has resigned as Quality Engineer from Hospet Steels Ltd and took up desk job in Industrial Development Bank of India because of his permanent disability, suffered by him in the accident is not in dispute. Obviously, because of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, who is an Engineer by profession, cannot take up such profession, which requires moving from one place to other place. Obviously, because of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, who is an Engineer by profession, cannot take up such profession, which requires moving from one place to other place. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court that the appellant has not suffered any financial loss because of permanent disability having regard to the fact that subsequently he took up employment in Industrial Development Bank of India as Grade - B Officer, cannot be sustained. Once the permanent disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its impact on the employment / profession of the claimant, the compensation has to be awarded. Since the disability suffered by the appellant, which is fixed at 60% and which is permanent in nature, impacted his employment and future prospects, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation Rs. 12,840/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 26,19,360/-towards loss of future earnings, and taking into consideration the 60% permanent disability suffered by the appellant, awarded him the actual compensation under the head 'loss of future earnings' at Rs. 15,71,616/- by rounding off the same to Rs. 15,72,000/-." 9. In the decision in Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others, AIR 2013 SC 3830 the victim was working as an Assistant Engineer in State Government service aged 28.5 years. The Tribunal applied the multiplier 15 which was held to be incorrect by the Hon'ble Apex Court and applied the multiplier 17, relying upon the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] -(DB). 10. In the decision in Robin Babu v. Kunjappan and Others, 2015 (4) KHC 91 a Division Bench of this Court while considering the claim of a 36 year old Preventive Officer at Excise Department who suffered amputation of leg in a motor vehicle accident, applied the multiplier 15, again relying upon the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) 11. In Akhilesh Chandran v. Sabu Varghese and Others, MANU/KE/3976/2024, a Single Judge of this Court in the case of an employee working in Urban Co-operative Bank has applied the multiplier 17. 12. In Akhilesh Chandran v. Sabu Varghese and Others, MANU/KE/3976/2024, a Single Judge of this Court in the case of an employee working in Urban Co-operative Bank has applied the multiplier 17. 12. In Kamala v. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2024 (5) KLT 80 , another Single Judge of this Court while dealing with the claim of a Special Tahsildar aged 50 while rejecting the multiplier of 5 applied by the Tribunal, taken 13 as the correct multiplier, again relying upon the decision in Sarla Verma (supra).Nat 13. In the light of the above decisions, it can be seen that the multiplier to be applied is not that of the retirement age of the employee as contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, but the multiplier to be applied is the one as on the date of the accident, as fixed in the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). 14. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was working as Circle Inspector of police, getting a monthly salary of Rs.12958/-. In this case, there is no evidence to show that because of the injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner lost his job or that there was reduction in his salary because of the above accident. In the above circumstance, the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as 50% of the income he received during the date of the accident, which will come to Rs.6479/-, rounded to Rs.6500/-. 15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 45 years. Since he was in permanent employment, 30% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and the multiplier to be applied is 14, as held in Sarla Verma (supra). Therefore, the loss of disability will come to Rs.2,12,940/-. 16. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- on the head pain and sufferings and Rs.30,000/- on the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Though the Tribunal found that the petitioner was treated as inpatient for 63 days, only Rs.5000 was awarded towards compensation for leave. It is true that the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove the details of leave availed by him, in connection with the accident. Though the Tribunal found that the petitioner was treated as inpatient for 63 days, only Rs.5000 was awarded towards compensation for leave. It is true that the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove the details of leave availed by him, in connection with the accident. Even then, considering the fact that the petitioner was treated as inpatient for 63 days, he is entitled to get loss of earning at least for the aforesaid period. Since his monthly salary was Rs.12958/-, it is rounded to Rs.13000/-. Therefore, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get the salary for 2 months and 3 days, ie, 2.1 months, which will come to Rs.27300/-. 17. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the percentage of disability suffered by him and the period of inpatient treatment undergone by him, I hold that, the compensation awarded on the heads 'pain and sufferings' and 'loss of amenities' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. The compensation awarded on other heads appears reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.6,70,327/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Extra nourishment 5000 5000 2 Transport and damage to clothings 5000 5000 3 Compensation for leave 5000 27300 4 Medical expenses 317487 317487 5 Bystanders expenses 12600 12600 6 Compensation for pain and sufferings 40000 50000 7 Compensation for continuing and permanent disability Nil 212940 8 Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 30000 40000 Total 415087 670327 Amount enhanced 255240 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.6,70,327/- (Rupees six lakh seventy thousand three hundred and twenty seven only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with 8% interest, excluding interest for a period of 553 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 20. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.