JUDGMENT

Barkath Ali, J.

In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1115/2001 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 24, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs. 43,151/- to the claimant for the loss caused to him on account of the injury sustained in a motor accident.

2. The facts in brief are these : Appellant/claimant was aged

41 and was employed as an Assistant in Calicut University drawing a salary of about 9,000/- . On April 22, 2001 at about 3.p.m. while he was riding a motor cycle from Omanoor to Mundakkal, an Autorickshaw driven by the first respondent came at a high speed and dashed against his motorcycle. Claimant sustained very serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Autorickshaw by the first respondent.

First respondent as the driver, second respondent as the owner and third respondent as the insurer of the offending Autorickshaw are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3. First respondent, the owner of the offending auto rickshaw filed a written statement denying the liability before the Tribunal. Second respondent , the driver of the Autorickshaw remained absent. Third respondent, insurer of the offending Autorickshaw filed a written statement admitting the policy.

4. Claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 series and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No document was produced by contesting respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence awarded a compensation of Rs. 43150/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the Insurance Company.

6. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending Autorickshaw were absent in this appeal. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A2, the copy of wound certificate.

1) Fracture of Acromion (Right) 2) Fracture of Humerus (Right)

3) Abrasion on the right elbow and face

7. The Tribunal awarded compensation as follows :

Transport to hospital -Rs. 500/-

Extra nourishment and bystanders expenses -Rs. 2,200/- Medical expenses -Rs.10,451/- Pain and suffering -Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities -Rs.20,000/-

-----------------

Rs. 43, 151/-

===========

8. Counsel for the appellant mainly disputed the fact that no amount was awarded for the disability caused as he was a salaried employee. Ext.X1 certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board shows that he has suffered a permanent disability of 10%. Therefore he is entitled to compensation for the disability caused due to the injury sustained. Ext.A7 is his salary certificate, certified copy of which is produced by the claimant before us which shows a gross salary of Rs.8,745/- and there is a deduction of Rs. 3010/- towards Provident Fund etc. Therefore, we feel that his monthly salary can be reasonably estimated at Rs. 5,700/- . As he was admittedly aged 40, a multiplier of 16 would be reasonable. On going through Ext.X1, we feel that his disability can be fixed at 5%. Thus calculated for the disability caused, he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 54,720/- ( 5 % x 5700 x 12 x 16).

9. For the pain and suffering endured, only Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration, the nature of the injury sustained, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus on this count, he is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

10. Counsel for the appellant argued that for the loss of earning, no compensation was awarded as admittedly, he would have been laid up for atleast two months. But he is a salaried employee still in service. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in not awarding any compensation for the loss of earnings.

11. The compensation aw