Rs.10,000/is awarded under the head ‘transportation expenditure’. The evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the disability is that the appellant was examined by him on the previous date of his giving evidence. His evidence shows that a surgery was conducted by open reduction and internal fixation, with interlocking nail and bone grafting was done. The evidence of P.W.2 further shows that there was a difficulty for the appellant to run and squat. He also found slight limping, apart from restriction of movement of ankle and knee. He stated that the appellant sustained 20% to 25% disability. The appellant claimed to be a supervisor and hence, his avocation may not involve running and squatting. Hence, 15% can be considered as the disability affecting the avocation of the appellant. The appellant filed his salary certificate showing his salary as Rs.5,000/- per month. He did not choose to prove the same by examining the person, who issued the salary certificate or any one concerned with the disbursement of his salary. Hence, Rs.3,000/- is taken as the monthly income of the appellant. 15% of the disability would result in loss of Rs.450/- per month and Rs.5400/- per annum. The age of the appellant was 36 years at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier for his age, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI
