1. Leave granted.

2. The injured has filed the present appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation. He suffered injuries in a road accident which took place on 11th September, 2006, The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-II, Poonamallee, Chennai, Tamil Nadu (for short, "the Tribunal") vide Award dated 12th January, 2009 awarded a sum of Rs. 79,500/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred only) to the appellant/injured on account of the injuries suffered.

3. The appellant claimed that he was in the occupation of a 'Mason'. The High Court[High Court of Judicature at Madras.] by the impugned order dated 12th March, 2019 increased the compensation to Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand only).

4. It was submitted that neither the income of the deceased has been assessed properly nor the multiplier has been applied. Even 'future prospects' have not been granted. On account of injuries suffered, the appellant is not able to carry on his occupation. For him, it is 100% functional disability. In support, a Disability Certificate from a private doctor has been annexed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Disability Certificate produced on record by the appellant cannot be relied upon. The same was got prepared more than two years after the accident and that too, merely a day before the doctor who issued the certificate had appeared in Court as a witness for the claimant. Even the contents of the certificate are quite vague. The doctor may not have been authorised to issue such type of certificate, as the same are issued only by the Government hospitals. He submitted that already reasonable amount of compensation has been awarded to the appellant. The multiplier cannot be applied in the case in hand.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The appellant suffered injuries in a road accident. The following are the injuries, as noticed by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the Award:

             "9. As per the evidence of PW1 due to the accident the petitioner sustained Fracture lower 1/3 of Fibula right leg, Fracture of Right Medial Malleolus, serious open wound over the right ankle and serious to multiple injuries all over the body. ..."

7. However, there is nothing on record to conclusively prove that as a result of the aforesaid injuries, there is any effect on the ability of the appellant to carry on his occupation. However, still considering the fact that there were injuries suffered by the appellant, as noticed above, in our opinion, without going into the details of calculation, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) can be awarded to the appellant, as compensation, as against Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one Lakh Fifteen Thousand only) awarded by the High Court. Ordered accordingly.

8. The impugned order passed by the High Court is modified to the extent mentioned above. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the High Court for payment of compensation. For payment of amount to the claimant, the direction issued by this Court in Parminder Singh versus Honey Goyal and Others[2025 INSC 361: (2025) 9 SCC 539] be kept in view.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed.