evidently, he continued in the employment, with all the benefits he was eligible for. Therefore, it was pointed out that there was no actual loss of earning capacity and if at all there is any such loss of earning capacity, that can only be for the period after the retirement of the appellant from service. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision reported in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.[(2021(6)KLT 136], wherein this Court accepted the said contentions, and calculated the compensation for disability with 50% of the monthly income for the period after the retirement. However, in this case, apparently, the monthly income claimed is comparatively low. Therefore, an assessment of such nature is likely to cause serious prejudice to the appellant. In such circumstances, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to adopt the normal method of assessment of compensation for disability, on the basis of the actual monthly income claimed in his deposition. As the appellant was aged 47 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier applicable is 13. Thus when compensation is calculated with the monthly income as Rs.3,300/- and the percentage of disability as 13. The amount payable under disability and
