Judgment K. T. THOMAS, J. ( 1 ) LEAVE granted. As a consequence of a collision between an oil tanker and a bus belonging to the appellant-the State Road Transport corporation-respondent No. 1, Mallikarjun sanganabasappa Shettar had a fracture on his right wrist. He claimed compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal concerned. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent No. 1. However, the Tribunal apportioned the liability of the owner of the oil tanker and the Corporation as equal. The respondent No. 2 insurance company is the insurer of the owner of the oil tanker. ( 2 ) ). The appellant Corporation contends that the compensation amount awarded for the fracture on the wrist is very much on the higher side. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 made an attempt to sustain the large amount of compensation on the premise that the said fracture affected his future earning when a doctor had assessed the disability at 25 per cent. ( 3 ) ). The Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 1,57,416 solely towards future loss of income. The respondent No. 1 is doing business as a dealer in chemicals and fertilizers. We are not satisfied as to why the respondent No. 1 did not approach any specialist in orthopedics when such experts are certainly available at Bangalore (respondent No. 1 is the resident of karnataka State) and also at Belgaum where medical college hospitals are in plenty. If he had approached one of them we have no doubt that the disability of 25 per cent should have been rectified considerably, if not fully. If, for any reason, it is not rectified, it is for the respondent to satisfy why it could not be rectified. ( 4 ) ). We observe even assuming that the movement of the wrist is impaired by 25 per cent the amount awarded by the tribunal for future loss appears to be much on the higher side. We consider all aspects and feel that a sum of Rs. 60,000 for such loss of income would meet the ends of justice. This could be added to the other counts of damages determined by the tribunal. Thus a total sum of rs. 1,00,000 can be assessed as reasonable compensation payable to the respondent No. 1. ( 5 ) ). We, therefore, modify the award to the above extent. 60,000 for such loss of income would meet the ends of justice. This could be added to the other counts of damages determined by the tribunal. Thus a total sum of rs. 1,00,000 can be assessed as reasonable compensation payable to the respondent No. 1. ( 5 ) ). We, therefore, modify the award to the above extent. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 2 insurance company that their liability being 50 per cent of the total amount, they are entitled to realise half of the amount already paid to the claimant. As the appellant Corporation has not paid a single amount to the claimant, we direct the Corporation to pay rs. 50,000 to the respondent No. 2 insurance company within three months. If the said amount is not paid within three months, it will bear interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of the said three months. ( 6 ) ). Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that to make up the correct figure the respondent No. 1 will refund rs. 4,000 to the respondent No. 2 insurance company within aforesaid period of three months. This statement is recorded. If the said amount is not paid by the respondent No. 1 within three months it will also bear interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of three months. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.