available on record as well. So we are not inclined to enhance the percentage of disability for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head, loss of earning capacity, and this disability can be considered while considering the amount to be awarded under the head, loss of amenities in life. There is some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the correct multiplier applicable to the age group of 42 is 14 and not 15 as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra). If a recalculation is made on the basis of taking his income as 3,000/per month, 14 as multiplier and percentage of disability as 28%, then he will be entitled to get 1,41,120/- instead of 1,08,000/awarded by the Tribunal under the head, loss of earning power. The difference would be 33,120/- and we award that amount under that head over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded 20,000/- under the head, loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the disabilities noted above, he will have to live with this difficulty for the remaining period of his life. It may have great impact on his personal life. So we are of opinion that 20,000/awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and we enhance the
