a rubber tapper, this may have some impact on his working capacity. But, the Tribunal arbitrarily reduced the percentage of disability to 8% which appears to be on the lower side. So, considering the nature of disability mentioned in the medical certificate, we feel that it can be taken as 12% for the purpose of assessing loss of earning capacity. As per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC), the proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 27, as the appellant was at the time of accident, is 17 and not 18 as taken by the Tribunal. If a re-calculation is made on that basis, the appellant will be entitled to an amount of Rs. 48,960/- (2000 x 12 x 17 x 12%) instead of Rs. 34,560/awarded by the Tribunal under that head. Considering the nature of disability mentioned and also the age of the appellant, he will have to be with this difficulty for the remaining period of his life. The amount of Rs. 8,000/awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities in life’, appears to be low and we enhance the same to Rs. 15,000/-. Though persuasive arguments were advanced by the counsel for the appellant for enhancement of compensation under other heads, we are not impressed by the same as we feel that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and proper.
