JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 25.11.2015 at about 08.40 a.m., while the claimant was driving a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-47-E-9234 through Ranny – Manimala public road, a private bus bearing registration No.KL-05-Q-7335 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tipper lorry and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 12,50,250/-, which is limited to Rs. 4,50,250/-. 3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Pws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the appellant/claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 2,58,760/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing 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 monthly income of the appellant, who was a heavy vehicle driver, the tribunal had taken only Rs. 10,000/-. It was further submitted that the accident occurred while the appellant was driving a lorry, which was hit by the offending bus. Considering the fact that the injured was a heavy vehicle driver, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at Rs. 15,000/-. II. 10,000/-. It was further submitted that the accident occurred while the appellant was driving a lorry, which was hit by the offending bus. Considering the fact that the injured was a heavy vehicle driver, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at Rs. 15,000/-. II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has granted only two months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following were the injuries sustained by the appellant: i) Contusion over left wrist ii) Abrasion over both bones and leg iii) Comminuted fracture dislocation left wrist dorsal barton 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. 15,000/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings would be Rs. 75,000/- (15,000 x 5). The tribunal had already granted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 55,000/- under the head loss of earnings. III. Bystander expenses The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted only Rs. 750/- for three 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. 350/- per day for three days in-patient treatment and grant compensation totalling to an amount of Rs. 1,050/-(350 x 3). Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 300/- under the head bystander expenses. IV . Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had undergone in-patient treatment for three days; however the tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs. 750/- and sought enhancement under the said head. Though the appellant had claimed Rs. 12,000/-, however, considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I find it appropriate to take Rs. 350/- per day for three days in-patient treatment and award a total compensation of Rs. 1,050/- (350 x 3). Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 300/- under the head bystander expenses. V. Pain and sufferings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed towards the head pain and sufferings, only an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. 1,050/- (350 x 3). Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 300/- under the head bystander expenses. V. Pain and sufferings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed towards the head pain and sufferings, only an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the age and nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find it appropriate to award a total compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the afore head. VI. 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. 7,000/- 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. 33,000/- under the afore head. Thus the total compensation payable under the head loss of amenities will be Rs. 40,000/-. VII. Compensation for permanent disability The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Ext.A10 disability certificate issued by the Standing Disability Assessment Board, Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Ranny, Pathanamthitta, the disability of the appellant was assessed as 9%. However, the tribunal had reduced the disability to 8%, while calculating the compensation under the head permanent disability. Since the disability certificate was issued by the medical board, I do not find any reason to disbelieve Ext.A10. The reasoning of the tribunal does not appear to be acceptable in view of the judgment of the apex court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [ 2011 (1) KLT 620 ] and this Court in Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair [ 2021(5) KHC 305 ]. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to consider 9% disability, as assessed in Ext.A10 disability certificate, for the purpose of calculating compensation towards disability. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that the percentage of disability can be fixed at 9%. 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. 2,75,400/- (15,000 x 12 x 17 x 9/100). 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. 2,75,400/- (15,000 x 12 x 17 x 9/100). The tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs. 1,63,200/- under the afore head. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 1,12,200/- 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 @ 8% per annum 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. 2,15,800/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifteen Thousand Eight 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 appellant 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 appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 155 days in filing the appeal.