is that the compensation for permanent disability awarded by the Tribunal is not correct. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier 9, having regard to the age of the appellant at the time of the accident. The discharge summary issued from Lourdes Hospital, Ernakulam, produced as Ext.A9 would show the age of the appellant as 56 years. The Tribunal in the absence of documents showing age proof, took the age as 63 based on the age recorded in the wound certificate recorded at the Hospital where the appellant was initially taken, before shifting him to Lourdes Hospital. I am of the opinion that the age shown in the Discharge summary should be taken for the purpose of computing the compensation. The multiplier to be adopted should hence be 9. The Medical Board had assessed 23% permanent disability. The compensation for permanent disability has hence to be modified. The next contention raised by the counsel for appellant is that the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life despite the fact that the appellant had suffered permanent disabilities due to the accident and had to be hospitalised for 13 days. It is pointed out that the medical documents will show that the appellant had sustained acetabular fracture left, multiple abrasion over face, disrupted left hip joint with
