by the medical board certified 40% disability. Going by his duties, as a medical representative, the appellant will have to travel a lot. His future prospects in employment necessarily depends on the business he canvases. Therefore, naturally, this 40% disability would affect his prospects in his employment to a considerable extent. Of course, the appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove that he could not do the job of medical representative as he was doing earlier and that he is getting reduced salary after the accident. But still, we are of opinion that for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity, the disability should be taken as 15%. The multiplier applicable is 17 as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). Calculated on that basis, the appellant would be entitled to 2,00,705/- ( 6,559 x 12 x 17 x 15%) instead of 1,33,803/- as compensation for loss of earning capacity. The difference would be 66,902/-. Considering the fact that the accident was in 2008, the appellant suffered “supra condylar inter condylar fracture (Lt) femur comminuted type I open and multiple abrasions”, and he had undergone two surgeries, we are inclined to enhance the compensation for pain and sufferings to 25,000/- from 15,000/-. The 40% physical
