JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV) No.1461 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the third respondent before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 19.04.2010, at about 2.00 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-2/D-4502 through Adoor – Keerukuzhy public road, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL- 26/A-4199 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the backside of the motorcycle ridden by the claimant and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The third respondent, insurer, filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondent – insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads: I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured was working as a photographer. Though it is stated in the F.I.S. that he was a photographer, the tribunal had taken the notional monthly income only as Rs.3,500/- wherein the amount claimed was Rs.9,000/-. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the notional monthly income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2010 is fixed as Rs.7,500/-. However, considering the fact that the injured was a photographer by profession, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income as Rs.8,000/-. II. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the notional monthly income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2010 is fixed as Rs.7,500/-. However, considering the fact that the injured was a photographer by profession, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income as Rs.8,000/-. II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of earnings.Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant: i) Comminuted fracture of right tibia with right lateral malleolus fracture. ii) Delayed union right tibia with implant (4.5mm DCP) –Bone grafting done iii) Fracture of both bones of right leg iv) Multiple injuries all over the body Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of five months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at Rs.8,000/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings would be Rs. 40,000/- (8,000 x 5). III. Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- for thirty three days in-patient treatment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant a consolidated amount of Rs.5,000/- for thirty three days in-patient treatment. Hence there will be an additional enhancement of Rs. 2,000/- under the afore head. IV. L oss of amenities in life On a perusal of the award, it is seen that no separate compensation was awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of amenities in life. Considering the age and the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 30,000/- under the said head. V. Compensation for permanent disability The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the percentage of disability of the appellant was assessed as 25%, future prospects ought to have been added to the income fixed. On a perusal of Ext.A11 disability certificate, it is seen that the percentage of disability was only 25% and that it falls under the minor category. Hence, I am not inclined to add any amount towards future prospects to the income so fixed. On a perusal of Ext.A11 disability certificate, it is seen that the percentage of disability was only 25% and that it falls under the minor category. Hence, I am not inclined to add any amount towards future prospects to the income so fixed. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the tribunal had wrongly adopted the multiplier as 7 instead of “9”.I find force in the said argument put forward by the appellant. The injured was aged only 59 years at the time of accident and the multiplier to be adopted is “9”, following the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)] . Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma (supra), the total compensation payable under the head permanent disability is recalculated thus: Rs.2,16,000/- (8,000 x 12 x 9 x 25/100). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs.73,500/- under the afore head. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 1,42,500/- under the head permanent disability. 6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Since the appeal is of the year 2020, I find it reasonable to award interest @ 7% for the enhanced amount. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 2,14,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and Bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and Bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimant at the earliest, in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled for interest for the period of delay of104 days in filing the appeal.