A. B. MURGOD, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle have challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in the sum of Rs. 73,500/- to the respondent, injured claimant in MVC no. 1138 of 1990 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-X, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, on the grounds that the compensation awarded is excessive and that there is duplication of compensation in respect of 'loss of amenities' and 'loss of future earnings'. ( 2 ) THE respondent-claimant has sustained injuries in the accident involving the vehicle owned by the first appellant and insured with second appellant and has suffered injuries as under: (1) Abrasion over outer aspect of forearm 1 cm. x1/2 cm. (2) Multiple abrasions over lateral aspect of thigh. (3) Lower incisor is missing. (4) Upper both incisors are half-broken. as found in para 12 of the judgment of the Tribunal. It further discloses that he has sustained comminuted fracture of shaft femur at upper 1/3rd in respect of which he was subjected to surgical remedy and he was an inpatient from 16. 4. 1990 to 19. 5. 1990. The doctor who treated him is examined and his evidence discloses that there is shortening of the right leg by 1 cm. and he has suffered physical disability to the tune of 25-30 per cent in the right lower limb. All these factors have been taken into consideration and the learned member of the Tribunal has awarded compensation on the following heads: (1) For pain, shock and suffering: Rs. 25,000/ ( 2) Medical expenses and other incidental expenses: Rs. 3,000/ ( 3) Loss of income during the period of treatment: Rs. 2,700/ ( 4) Loss of future income or earning capacity: Rs. 37,800/ ( 5) Loss of amenities in life: Rs. 5,000/3. It is contended that the award is excessive and the learned counsel submitted that shortening of the right leg by 1 cm. does not so much affect the driving ability of the injured respondent and he can still drive the vehicle and, therefore, grant of compensation of Rs. 37,800/- towards loss of future income is contended to be unwarranted. ( 3 ) WE have gone through the reasoning of the learned member of the Tribunal. does not so much affect the driving ability of the injured respondent and he can still drive the vehicle and, therefore, grant of compensation of Rs. 37,800/- towards loss of future income is contended to be unwarranted. ( 3 ) WE have gone through the reasoning of the learned member of the Tribunal. We find that the injured respondent was an autorickshaw driver by profession and it is his right leg that was operated upon and is shortened after recovery by 1 cm. causing permanent disability to the tune of 25-30 per cent. The physical disability is taken into consideration and the learned member of the Tribunal has worked out at 25 per cent the future loss of earning by resorting to multiplier method. The medical evidence discloses that there is restriction of movement of the right lower limb and the doctor has further opined that driving by respondent is not advisable and it is also not in the interest of public. It is common knowledge that the right leg of the driver of the auto-rickshaw is in frequent operation while driving the autorickshaw and the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the present injury of the respondent does not affect the driving of the respondent is not acceptable. It is the right lower limb of the respondent which has to exert more in driving the autorickshaw and as per the medical evidence, driving by respondent is not advisable and it is much more so in case of driving public service vehicle. Keeping these factors in mind, the learned member of the Tribunal has proceeded to work out the loss of future income by relying on principles enunciated by this court in Bhagya v. General Manager, karnataka State Road Trans. Corporation M. F. A. No. 1535 of 1992; decided on 21. 9. 1992. We are of the opinion that the learned member of the Tribunal has not committed any error in working out the loss of future income. We also notice that the amount awarded under the head 'loss of amenities' is only Rs. 5,000/- and we also do not agree with the contention that the two heads, namely, loss of amenities and loss of future income overlap each other as submitted by the learned counsel. They are two different heads and it is necessary to award separately on the two heads. 5,000/- and we also do not agree with the contention that the two heads, namely, loss of amenities and loss of future income overlap each other as submitted by the learned counsel. They are two different heads and it is necessary to award separately on the two heads. The contentions urged on behalf of the appellants hold no water. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is rejected. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that he has already deposited Rs. 25,000/- towards the award and he prays for six weeks' time to deposit the balance. His prayer is granted and he is permitted to deposit the balance amount awarded in six weeks.