JUDGMENT K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.— The petitioner-claimant as also respondents 1 and 2 in MVC No. 2130/2001, on the file of the Additional MACT, Saundatti, are in appeal before this Court. The petitioner-claimant is dissatisfied whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In both these appeals, as the respective appellants have questioned the correctness of the same judgment and award, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The parties herein will be referred to with reference to their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner-claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the personal injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 7.00 P.M. on 5.5.1997. 4. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under; That on 5.5.1997 at about 4.30 P.M. he boarded a KSRTC Bus at Yeragatti, to go to Ramdurg. When the said bus came near Chandargi village, another KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA 25 F-811 running from Shaktinagar to Belgaum, came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, he sustained injuries to his forearm and index finger. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Katakol, wherein first aid treatment was given to him and thereafter he was referred to Dr. Y.B. Kulgod Hospital, Ramdurg, who in turn referred the petitioner to Dr. Mahantesh Hooli, Orthopedic Surgeon, Saundatti. During treatment, it was noticed that the petitioner has sustained fracture of forearm. Inspite of best treatment, the petitioner has suffered permanent disability in his right forearm, which has affected his future earning. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in High Court and on account of the disability, he is unable to carry on his profession as he was doing earlier. 5. Upon service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their learned Counsel and contested the petition. 6. In the objections, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied all the petition averments and called upon the petitioner to prove the same. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied the allegation that there was collision between two KSRTC buses. 5. Upon service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their learned Counsel and contested the petition. 6. In the objections, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied all the petition averments and called upon the petitioner to prove the same. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied the allegation that there was collision between two KSRTC buses. They denied the averment regarding the nature of injuries said to have been sustained by the petitioner. They also denied the allegation regarding the income of the petitioner and also the disability said to have been suffered by him. They contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues; i) Whether the petitioner proves that he/she has sustained bodily injuries in the Motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5.5.1997 at about 1900 hours on Belgaum-Bagalkot road, 1 Km away towards Western side of the K. Chandragi village on account of rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 25-F-811 by its driver? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? iii) What Award? 8. During trial, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and examined one Dr. Basavaraj Hanamantappa Dodamani who is stated to have issued the disability certificate as PW.2. He got marked Exs.P.1 to P.21. On the other hand, respondents did not lead any evidence either oral or documentary. 9. After hearing both sides, the learned Member of the Tribunal by his judgment under appeal dated 30.6.2005 held that there was collision between two KSRTC buses near Chandragi village at 7.00 P.M. on 5.5.1997 and that the said accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 25 F-811 by its driver. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative. 10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of PW.2 held that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 20% as against the whole body and therefore to that extent the petitioner has suffered loss of future earning. The Tribunal after assessing the income of the petitioner at Rs. 1,09,200/- p.a. reckoned the loss of future earning at Rs. The Tribunal after assessing the income of the petitioner at Rs. 1,09,200/- p.a. reckoned the loss of future earning at Rs. 21,840/- p.a. being 20% of the annual income and by applying the multiplier of 15, assessed the future loss of earning at Rs. 3,05,760/-. In addition to this, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering, Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling expenses. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,20,760/- as compensation. The Tribunal directed payment of compensation amount by the respondents 1 and 2 together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner has presented MFA No. 8996/2005 and being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the respondents 1 and 2 have preferred appeal in MFA No. 9172/2005. 11. The finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to actionable negligence has not been assailed by respondents 1 and 2 in their appeal. In any case, both the vehicles involved in the accident belong to the respondents. There is no dispute that the petitioner-claimant was a passenger in one of the buses, which were involved in the accident. Thus, he is entitled for compensation from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the only question to be considered in these appeals is Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tow or excessive and whether the same is required to be enhanced or reduced? 12. The principles of law regarding various heads under which compensation is required to be awarded in personal injury cases are well settled by catena of decisions of this Court and also of the Apex Court. In personal injury cases, the claimant is entitled for compensation broadly under two heads namely; general damages and special damages. Under the general damages, the compensation is awarded towards injury, pain and suffering and also towards loss of amenities if any or enjoyment of life on account of permanent disability, if any sustained by the claimant. In personal injury cases, the claimant is entitled for compensation broadly under two heads namely; general damages and special damages. Under the general damages, the compensation is awarded towards injury, pain and suffering and also towards loss of amenities if any or enjoyment of life on account of permanent disability, if any sustained by the claimant. Under the special damages, the claimant is entitled for compensation towards medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges etc., loss of earning during treatment and laid-up period and loss of future earning capacity or earning on account of permanent disability affecting his future earnings. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Post Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (1995) ACC 281 has set out various heads under which an injured is entitled to claim compensation in paragraph-9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to he assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate the concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant (i) medial attendance (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk run or sit; (Hi) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 14. The Tribunals constituted under Section 168 are required to determine the compensation, which should be just and reasonable. Nodoubt, no amount of money can restore the physical frame of a person. However, on that ground, the Tribunal cannot award whimsical amounts as compensation. The compensation to be assessed by the Tribunal should be just and reasonable. What is just and reasonable has been a matter of interpretation in various decisions. Nodoubt, no amount of money can restore the physical frame of a person. However, on that ground, the Tribunal cannot award whimsical amounts as compensation. The compensation to be assessed by the Tribunal should be just and reasonable. What is just and reasonable has been a matter of interpretation in various decisions. The Apex Court in the case State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, AIR 2003 SC 3696 , has stated thus in para-7 with regard to what is just and reasonable compensation in relation to assessment of compensation under the Act. (7) It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable', it has to be borne in mind that compensation for toss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit, but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be 'just' compensation is the vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing the compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation, which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression 'which appears to it to be just' a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression 'just' denotes fairness, equitability and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so it cannot be just. 15. The expression 'just' denotes fairness, equitability and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so it cannot be just. 15. Thus, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation and it would depend upon particular facts and circumstances and attendant peculiar or special features if any, and every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is pivotal consideration. The Apex Court has made it further clear that though the Tribunals have wide discretion in assessing quantum of compensation, the determination has to be rational and to be done by judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. 16. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us proceed to find out whether the Tribunal has properly assessed the compensation under different heads. 17. According to the averments made in the claim petition, the petitioner sustained fracture of forearm and he was treated in Dr. Mahantesh Hooli Hospital, Saundatti, as inpatient for 10 days and thereafter he took further treatment with orthopedic surgeon in Bangalore. In the examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit, the petitioner has stated that as a result of the accident, he sustained grievous injury to the forearm and index finger. Immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Katagol where he was given first aid treatment and was referred to Dr. Kulgod, at Ramdurg and from there he was referred to Dr. Mahantesh Hooli Hospital, Saundatti; that there he was treated for the fracture of the forearm and was inpatient for more than 10 days in the said Hospital; that thereafter he consulted orthopedic surgeon in Bangalore and took further treatment; that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was practicing as an advocate in the High Court, Bangalore. According to him. prior to the accident he was a legal advisor to many Companies and was earning Rs. 25,000/- p.m. from his profession. He has further stated that he lost his bright profession and future, and after the accident he was forced to close his office in majestic area at Bangalore due to financial difficulties. According to him. prior to the accident he was a legal advisor to many Companies and was earning Rs. 25,000/- p.m. from his profession. He has further stated that he lost his bright profession and future, and after the accident he was forced to close his office in majestic area at Bangalore due to financial difficulties. According to him, because of the accident, he has suffered permanent disability in his right forearm, which has come in the way of his professional work and thus, he has lost his earning capacity and also future income. He was cross-examined at length by the learned Counsel for the respondent. During the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he was not earning Rs. 25,000/- p.m. from his profession and that he has not suffered any permanent disability affecting his profession as an Advocate. 18. PW.2 is Dr. B.H. Dodamani, Orthopedic Surgeon, from Ramdurg. According to him, he examined the petitioner on 24.8.2003 at Ramdurg when the petitioner came for assessment of disability. He further stated that the petitioner came with the history of road traffic accident and complained pain in his right wrist joint with difficulty in writing and difficulty in carrying weight in the right hand. According to him, on examination of the petitioner, he noticed deformity of right wrist joint, swelling and tenderness around the right wrist and movement namely; rotational movement limited to 30 degree, dorsiflexion Limited to 10 degree. He has further stated x-ray of the right wrist taken on 24.8.2003 revealed malunited fracture radius and arthritic changes of right wrist. According to this doctor, considering the clinical and radiological finding he is of the opinion that it amounts to 30% permanent physical disability of the right upper limb. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he did not treat the petitioner at any point of time and for the first time he examined the petitioner on 24.3,2008 and issued disability certificate as per Ex.P.10. He has denied the suggestion that the petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability and that the petitioner is able to write and work with his right hand as he was doing earlier. He has denied the suggestion that petitioner has not suffered 30% of disability to his right upper limb and that to help the petitioner, he has given exaggerated figure of disability. He has denied the suggestion that petitioner has not suffered 30% of disability to his right upper limb and that to help the petitioner, he has given exaggerated figure of disability. This is all the oral evidence led by the petitioner with regard to the injuries suffered by him and also the permanent disability stated to have been incurred by him. 19. As noticed earlier, the Tribunal accepting the evidence of PW.2 that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% of right upper limb has held that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% in relation to his whole body and therefore there is reduction of his future earning by 20%. On that basis he has calculated loss of future earning at Rs. 3,05,760/-. In addition to this amount, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 1,15,000/- under various heads. 20. As discussed above, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 as also the wound certificate it is clear that the petitioner had sustained lacerated wound over right index finger which is a simple injury and fracture of right forearm which is the grievous injury. Close reduction of the fracture was done under general Anaesthesia by Dr. Mahantesh Hooli. There is no dispute as to the contents of wound certificate Ex.P.3 and the letter Ex,P.4 issued by Dr. Mahantesh Hooli. 21. From the contents of Ex.P.3, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner was immobilised atleast for a period of six weeks for proper union of fractured bone. Even after removal of plaster of paris, it is reasonable to assume that for some more time, the petitioner was not in a position to use his right hand as earlier. Therefore, the injury namely the fracture suffered by the petitioner and the consequent pain and suffering are required to be compensated in terms of money. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- under this head. Having regard to the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and in view of fact that though the accident has occurred in 1997, the claim petition was filed in the year 2001, nearly 3 1/2 years after the accident, the award of Rs. 35,000/- under the head "injury, pain and suffering", in our considered view is on the higher side. The award of Rs. 25,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable. 35,000/- under the head "injury, pain and suffering", in our considered view is on the higher side. The award of Rs. 25,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, we reduce the compensation under this head from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. 22. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of amenities on account of permanent disability. As noticed above, the Tribunal has also awarded huge sum under the head 'loss of future earning on account of permanent disability. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, even the award of Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of amenities is on the higher side. In our considered view, the award of Rs. 20,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable. 23. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. There is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that on account of the accident, there is diminution of life span of the petitioner. The Tribunal having awarded compensation towards loss of amenities, we fail to understand as to how separate compensation towards loss of expectation of life could be awarded. The Tribunal has committed a serious error in awarding separate amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life. The petitioner is not entitled for this amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 45,000/- towards general damages as against Rs. 95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 24. Before the Tribunal, though the medical bills for less than Rs. 500/- were produced, the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had suffered fracture of right upper limb involving wrist, we do not propose to alter the award of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and we also do not propose to alter the award of Rs. 10,000/- by the Tribunal towards the expenses incurred by the petitioner for follow-up treatment and towards attendant and incidental charges. 25. The next aspect required to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 3,05,760/- towards loss of future earning by holding that the petitioner has suffered loss of future earning to the extent of 20% based on 30% physical disability in relation to whole body. 25. The next aspect required to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 3,05,760/- towards loss of future earning by holding that the petitioner has suffered loss of future earning to the extent of 20% based on 30% physical disability in relation to whole body. It is noticed, of late, the Tribunals are awarding astronomical figures as compensation under the head of loss of future earning just on the basis of the evidence that the injured has suffered permanent disability without properly considering as to whether that permanent disability has resulted in functional disability in any way affecting the future earning capacity or earnings of the injured. The loss of future earning on account of disability would depend upon several factors such as the nature of work carried on by the injured, his profession and his or her inability to gainfully engage himself in any other avocation or job. In order to find out as to whether the injured has suffered loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, there must be cogent and acceptable evidence to prove that the permanent disability has come in the way of injured carrying on his avocation/profession as he was doing earlier, if so to what extent it has affected his future earnings, In a case of this nature, a medical expert probably would be in a better position to furnish his opinion with reference to the avocation or profession of the injured. It is our experience that in majority of cases, no Doctor is examined to prove this fact. Even if a Doctor is examined, he would not state as to how the disability has affected the future earnings of the injured and to what extent with reference to the avocation/profession of the injured. It is also our experience that whenever a Doctor who appears to have examined the injured for the purpose of assessment of disability is examined before the Court he would merely state as to what is the percentage of the disability with reference to the particular limb and as to the percentage of disability as against the whole body. However, the Doctor's would not state the basis on which such percentage of disability is assessed. However, the Doctor's would not state the basis on which such percentage of disability is assessed. There also appears to be no standard guidelines to state precisely as to what would be the percentage of disability as against the whole body when compared to the percentage of disability of a particular limb. In the absence of such cogent and acceptable evidence, it would not be proper for the Tribunals to assess compensation under the head loss of future earning'. Nodoubt, permanent disability may result in loss of future earning capacity. However, if that loss of future earning capacity has not resulted in actual loss of earnings, in such cases, question of granting compensation under the head 'loss of future earning' does not arise. However, in such cases, loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability would have certainly greater bearing while computing the compensation payable under the head 'loss of amenities and enjoyment of life'. This could be illustrated with example; if an injured employed in a private or Government organisation, suffers permanent disability which results in loss of future earning capacity, and despite the permanent disability, if such a person do not suffer reduction in his rank or salary, there is absolutely no loss of future earning. However, in such cases, the compensation to be granted under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, will have to be substantial. On the other hand, if an injured who is a businessman or an agriculturist or a cooli suffers permanent disability resulting in loss of future earning capacity which would reduce his future earning, it is a case for grant of compensation on the head of future loss of earning on account of permanent disability, by applying the well settled principles, provided, the claimant places cogent and acceptable evidence in that respect. However, of late, we are noticing that the Tribunals without finding out as to whether really the permanent disability suffered by the injured has in any way affected the future earnings of the injured, are granting huge amount of compensation towards loss of future earning, only on the basis of vague evidence of the Doctor as to the percentage of disability with reference to that particular limb and against whole body. It is needless to state that Tribunals while awarding compensation are dealing with public money as observed in several decision of this Court and they are required to be more careful. 26. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in this Court. There is also no serious dispute that the petitioner suffered fracture of right radius. According to the contents of Ex.P.4, the fracture was reduced conservatively under general anesthesia and thereafter plaster of paris was applied and the check x-ray taken also showed acceptable positions. Ex.P.5 is the letter from Dr. Mahantesh Hooli, to the Orthopedic surgeon at Bangalore indicating as to the nature of treatment he has given to the petitioner and requesting the Orthopedic Surgeon at Bangalore, to do the follow-up and to see problem if any in between. After the date of Exs.P.4 and P.5, the only other medical record produced by the petitioner is Ex.P.10 disability certificate dated 24.8.2003. It is not forthcoming as to whether after 7.5.1997, the petitioner took any follow-up treatment with any Orthopedic Surgeon at Bangalore. it is also not forthcoming whether after plaster of paris was removed any x-ray of the right forearm was taken to verify as to whether fracture has properly united or not. Of course, 8 x-ray films produced have been marked as Ex.P.11. There is one x-ray dated 24.5.1997 taken at Dr. Mahantesh Hooli Hospital, Saundatti. However, this x-ray does not accompany the report of the radiologist. The x-ray films appear to have been taken immediately after the accident and after reducing the fracture and putting plaster of Paris. From the above it is clear that there is no medical evidence to establish that after the petitioner took initial treatment at Saundatti he took any follow-up treatment at Bangalore or at any other place. He appears to have not taken any follow-up treatment with any Orthopedic Surgeon. He seems to have got examined by an Orthopedic Surgeon at Ramdurg only on 24.8.2003, who has issued disability certificate as per Ex.P.10. If really there was mal-union of the fracture and if the petitioner was undergoing any pain or discomfort on account of that he would have certainly taken further treatment with any Doctor either in Bangalore or at Saundatti. However, no such evidence is produced. If really there was mal-union of the fracture and if the petitioner was undergoing any pain or discomfort on account of that he would have certainly taken further treatment with any Doctor either in Bangalore or at Saundatti. However, no such evidence is produced. The Doctor who has issued Ex.P.10, as noticed earlier examined as PW.2, admittedly has not treated the petitioner at any point of time. He seems to have examined the petitioner only on the date when he issued the disability certificate Ex.P.10, Even in Ex.P.10, it is not stated as to whether alleged permanent disability has in any way affected the earning capacity of the petitioner, if so to what extent. Even in his oral evidence, PW.2 has not stated as to whether the alleged permanent disability of the right forearm suffered by the petitioner has in any way affected the future earning capacity of the petitioner who is an Advocate by profession and if so, to what extent. Even if the evidence of PW.2 that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability on account of fracture sustained is accepted, it cannot be ipso-facto held that such permanent disability has affected the future earning capacity of the petitioner as an Advocate. As noticed earlier, the question as to whether the injured is entitled for compensation under loss of future earning on account of permanent disability would depend upon several factors. Those factors are required to be proved as a matter of fact in accordance with law. It is only then the Tribunal can properly assess the loss or damages on account of such permanent disability and such amount should indicate that it is just and reasonable. Merely on the vague evidence of Doctor that the injured has suffered permanent disability to a particular limb to certain extent and thereby there is permanent disability as against the whole body to certain degree, it cannot be accepted that such permanent disability has affected the future earning capacity of the injured. Unless there is cogent and acceptable evidence that permanent disability suffered by the injured has resulted in functional disability affecting his future earning capacity and thereby there is financial loss to the claimant, it will not be proper to award compensation under the head 'loss of future earning'. 27. Unless there is cogent and acceptable evidence that permanent disability suffered by the injured has resulted in functional disability affecting his future earning capacity and thereby there is financial loss to the claimant, it will not be proper to award compensation under the head 'loss of future earning'. 27. In the present case, except the evidence of PW.2 that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% of the right upper limb there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the petitioner has suffered functional disability affecting his future earnings. The petitioner has produced certain documents marked as Exs.P.13 to P.20 as certificates issued by various organisation to indicate that he was appointed as legal advisors. These documents are produced to show that petitioner had good practice and he had good income from his profession as Advocate. He has also produced income tax returns and acknowledgement for certain years and marked as Ex.P.21. It is interesting to note that though the certificates Exs.P.13 to P.17, 19 and 20 relate to different organisations, they appear to have been signed by the same person as Managing Director. However, these certificates only indicate that the petitioner was appointed as their legal advisor. These certificates do not indicate as to how much professional fee they have paid to the petitioner in each of the years prior to the accident and subsequent to the accident. In his oral evidence, the petitioner has not stated that these organisations have terminated his services after the accident. The certificates also do not indicate that they have terminated the services of the petitioner on account of the disability suffered by him in the accident. Ex.P.18 is the certificate stated to have been issued by the Principal KLE Law College, According to this certificate, the petitioner who has educational qualification of MA. LLB. was working as a part-time Lecturer for ML course from the year 1982-83 to 1985-1986 in their college at Bangalore. In the first place it is highly difficult to accept that a person with LLB qualification could teach student studying Post Graduation in law i.e. M.L. At the second place, according to this certificate, the petitioner worked in the said college between 1982-83 to 1985-86, whereas the accident was in the year 1997. Even according to the petitioner he left the work as Lecturer after he became busy in his profession. Even according to the petitioner he left the work as Lecturer after he became busy in his profession. Therefore, the said certificate has no relevance to indicate any loss of earning. Ex.P.21 comprises of acknowledgements issued by the income tax authorities and copies of the income tax returns for different years. Perusal of these documents indicate that the petitioner filed his first income tax returns for the assessment year 1996-97 i.e. for the financial year 1995-96 ending 31.3.1996. Along with this, a Form in Appendix-A is also produced. According to the contents of this form, the petitioner was not an assessee and the returns of income for the assessment year 1996-97 has been filed for the first time. According to the computation of the total income for the assessment year 1996-97, the income received by the petitioner from his profession as Advocate was Rs. 1,53,900/-. The acknowledgment issued by the income tax authorities for having filed income tax returns for the year 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997 and assessment year 1997-98, indicates the taxable income of the petitioner as Rs. 46,541. As per the computation of the income for the financial year 1997-98, the income received by the petitioner from his profession as Advocate has been shown as Rs. 2,32,000/-. The next copy of the assessment produced in Ex.P.21 is for the financial year 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 and for the assessment year 2000-01. As per this, the total income received from the profession as Advocate has been shown as Rs. 1,87,650/- For the financial year 2000-01 and assessment year 2001-02, the income received from the profession is shown as Rs. 1,67,075/-. These two income tax returns are filed subsequent to the filing of the claim petition. Very conveniently, the petitioner has not produced the income tax returns for the financial year 1997-98 and 1998-99, which were very much relevant to find out as to whether there was any financial loss incurred by the petitioner from his profession after the accident. Even if there is some indication that the income received by the petitioner from his profession during these years is low compared to the previous years, unless it is shown that such reduction was on account of the permanent disability, it cannot be held that the petitioner has suffered loss of income on account of disability. Even if there is some indication that the income received by the petitioner from his profession during these years is low compared to the previous years, unless it is shown that such reduction was on account of the permanent disability, it cannot be held that the petitioner has suffered loss of income on account of disability. As noticed above, the injury suffered by him were one simple injury on the right index finger and fracture of the lower end of radius. The said fracture was reduced conservatively. He has not undergone any surgery. Admittedly, the petitioner is an Advocate by profession. Even if there is certain amount of permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, it is not established by the petitioner by convincing evidence that this permanent disability in his right forearm has in any way affected his functioning as Advocate and as a result, there is loss in his professional income to any extent. The disability said to have been suffered by the petitioner in his right forearm, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be stated that it has affected the petitioner's profession as an advocate. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that there are no evidence placed by the petitioner nor there were any circumstances warranting the Tribunal to award separate compensation under the head 'loss of future earning' on account of permanent disability. The Tribunal accepting the income shown in the income tax return for the year 1996-97 has computed the loss of future earning by calculating 20% of the said earning and multiplying it by the multiplier of 14. In the absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence that the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner has in way affected the functioning of the petitioner as an Advocate and on account of that there is reduction in his professional income, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed serious error in awarding huge sum of Rs. 3,05,760/- towards loss of future earning. There is absolutely no ground to award any amount towards future loss of earning. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal under this head is required to be set aside. 28. In view of the discussions made above, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner-claimant, whereas the appeal filed by the respondent KSRTC deserves to be allowed. 29. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal under this head is required to be set aside. 28. In view of the discussions made above, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner-claimant, whereas the appeal filed by the respondent KSRTC deserves to be allowed. 29. Accordingly, MFA No. 8996/2005 filed by the petitioner-claimant is dismissed. MFA No. 9172/2005 filed by KSRTC is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 4,20,760/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 1,15,000/-. The appellant-KSRTC shall pay the compensation amount together with interest at 8% p,a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount if any deposited in this Court by KSRTC is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.