JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV) No.244 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 24.01.2016, at about 7.30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-5-AE/3766 through Chennadu – Erattupetta public road, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-35A/9115 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the claimant and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, he remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second 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 A10 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 first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 6,28,120/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% 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 though an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the injured, who alleged to be engaged in real estate business, the tribunal had taken only an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the notional monthly income of an ordinary worker for an accident in the year 2016 is fixed as Rs. 10,500/- and sought enhancement of the income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at Rs. 10,500/-. II. 10,500/- and sought enhancement of the income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at Rs. 10,500/-. II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has granted only three months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant: i) Fracture proximal phalanx middle finger ii) Fracture (Right) index finger iii) Fracture both bones (Right) leg iv) Fracture P1, P2 2 nd toe (Right) v) Acetabulam Right hip vi) Swelling (Right) leg vii) Multiple abrasions (Right) leg, (Right) knee and (Right) hand 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. 10,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings would be Rs. 52,500 /- (10,500 x 5). The tribunal had already granted an amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 22,500/- under the head loss of earnings. III. Bystander expenses The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted only Rs. 5,000/- for twenty days in-patient treatment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to take an amount of Rs. 400/- per day for twenty days in-patient treatment totalling to Rs. 8,000/- (400 x 20). Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head bystander expenses. IV. Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted only an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards extra nourishment for twenty 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 twenty days in-patient treatment. Hence there will be an additional enhancement of Rs. 3,000/- under the head extra nourishment. V. L oss of amenities in life On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs. 45,000/- towards the head loss of amenities in life, which is on the lower side. Hence there will be an additional enhancement of Rs. 3,000/- under the head extra nourishment. V. L oss of amenities in life On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs. 45,000/- towards the head loss of amenities in life, which is on the lower side. Considering the age and loss of enjoyment in life, I find that the appellant will be entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the afore head. Thus the total compensation payable under the head loss of amenities will be Rs. 60,000/-. VI. Compensation for permanent disability The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Ext.A8 disability certificate issued by Dr.Thomas Mathai, the Orthopedic Surgeon, the permanent disability of the appellant was assessed as 18%. However, the doctor was not examined by the tribunal to prove Ext.A8 certificate. Consequently, the tribunal had fixed the disability at 10% while calculating the compensation under the head permanent disability, which appears to be on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the opinion of the doctor in Ext.A8, I find that the percentage of functional disability can be re-fixed at 15%. Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)]. , the total compensation payable under the head permanent disability is recalculated thus: Rs. 2,45,700/- (10,500 x 12 x 13 x 15/100). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- under the afore head. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 89,700/- 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. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: 10 Compensation for disability 4,00,000 1,56,000 89,700 2,45,700 11 Compensation for loss of amenities 1,50,000 45,000 15,000 60,000 Total amount (which is limited to) 10,00,000 6,28,120 1,33,200 7,61,320 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: 10 Compensation for disability 4,00,000 1,56,000 89,700 2,45,700 11 Compensation for loss of amenities 1,50,000 45,000 15,000 60,000 Total amount (which is limited to) 10,00,000 6,28,120 1,33,200 7,61,320 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,33,200/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% 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. 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 of 59 days in filing the appeal.