JUDGMENT B.V. Nagarathna, J.—The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, assailing the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 317/2010, dated 19.10.2011, by the Additional MACT., at Belgaum. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent-claimant on 8.5.2009 had been to Goa in an Alto car bearing Registration No. MH-12/DY-9493 along with his friends. After completion of his work while returning in the said vehicle towards Kolhapur from Savantwadi-Aamboli Road the driver of the car was proceeding within the limits of Fanaswadi village, when at that time a truck bearing Registration No. KA-19/7613 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. As a result of the impact, the car turned turtle and dashed against the tree. The respondent-claimants sustained grievous injuries, he was immediately shifted to Primary Health Centre, Aamboli and after first aid he was shifted to Nippani wherein, he was admitted at Dr. Sana's hospital. Thereafter, he was again shifted to Adhar Hospital, Kolhapur wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 12.5.2009 to 27.5.2009, where he underwent surgery to the right femur by implantation of nail and plating and surgery to left radius-ulna. After discharge, he took follow up treatment. Contending that he had sustained permanent disability on account of accidental injuries, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation on various heads. 2. The claim petition was clubbed with MVC No. 2188/2010 filed by another inmate of the Maruti Alto Car. In support of his case, respondent-claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and Dr. S.R. Angagi as P.W. 2 and two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 3 and 4, totally 29 documents were produced by the claimant and they were marked as Exs. P1 to P29 and common evidence was let in, while, the insurer let in the evidence of R.W. 1 and produced three documents which were marked as Exs. R1 to R3. On the basis of the evidence let in by the respondent-claimant, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum on the following heads: 1. Injury pain and agony 2. Medical expenses 3. Nursing, attendant charges conveyance and extra nourishment 4. Loss of earning during treatment 5. Loss of future earning 6. Loss of amenities and future happiness Total Rs. 45,000/-Rs. 97,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-Rs.1,08,000/- Rs. 22,000/-Rs.2,92,000/- 3. 2,92,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum on the following heads: 1. Injury pain and agony 2. Medical expenses 3. Nursing, attendant charges conveyance and extra nourishment 4. Loss of earning during treatment 5. Loss of future earning 6. Loss of amenities and future happiness Total Rs. 45,000/-Rs. 97,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-Rs.1,08,000/- Rs. 22,000/-Rs.2,92,000/- 3. The insurance company is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and hence has filed this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. He has contended that the claimant was doing pharmaceutical business. Though he had sustained fracture injuries, the Tribunal was not right in awarding Rs. 1,08,000/- towards loss of future earning capacity in the absence of there being any material to show the loss in the business on account of the accidental injuries. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subashchand Jain v. Ganapathi and another reported in 2002 (4) Kar LJ 433 (DB) : (AIR 2002 Kant HCR 2082). He further submitted that the compensation awarded in the instant case calls for reduction in this appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the Tribunal has discussed the multiple fracture injuries sustained by the respondent claimant. They are 1. fracture of right neck of femur 2. Fracture of right shaft of femur 3. Fracture of left radius. P.W. 2 Doctor S.R. Angadi was examined. He has issued the disability certificate, the details of which are extracted in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Tribunal. The disability certificate states that there is 30% permanent disability with regard to left upper limb and 45% permanent disability with regard to right lower limb as per Alemco manual. Ex. P8 is the X-ray report issued by Dr. S.R. Angadi which shows that there is mal united comminuted fracture of middle 1/3rd shaft of the right femur and fracture of neck of left femur with intramedular nail in situ and malunited fracture of middle 1/3rd shaft of the left radius and left ulna with plates and screws in situ. 7. On the basis of the said evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the whole-body disability at 15%. 7. On the basis of the said evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the whole-body disability at 15%. The Tribunal has also noted that the respondent-claimant is a diploma in pharmacy and has been enrolled and registered by the Karnataka State Pharmacy Council and he is running a medical store as "Rohan Medical and General Store". Though the said pharmacy is standing in the name of his wife but is also a qualified pharmacist. Though there is no document to show that there was loss in business on account of the injuries, but having regard to the nature of injuries, the age and nature of business, the Tribunal held Rs. 1,08,000/- as the loss of future earning capacity. The said figure is arrived at by assessing the income of the claimant at Rs. 125/- per day and 15% whole body was taken into consideration and appropriate multiplier of 16 was applied. The grievance of the appellant is that the award of compensation on the said head is not right and proper, in the absence of there being any loss in the business on account of the accidental injuries. Though there is no proof with regard to any loss in business on account of the accidental injuries what has to be considered in the instant case is, assessment of whole body disability of 15%. This is not a case where the respondent-claimant is earning his livelihood by physical labour but the fact that whole body disability of 15% would have a repercussion on the loss of amenities and comfort and the fact that there is disability to an extent of 15% which is a permanent disability would have to be compensated cannot be lost sight of. In fact in the decision of the Division Bench cited of the counsel for the appellant it has been stated that "the loss attributable due to the physical disability resulting in loss of earning is different from the loss which can be attributed to earning capacity from a business. Any physical disability need not necessarily result in loss of earning from the business and so there is no occasion to apply the same principles". However, physical disability which would result in loss in business has been recognised. Any physical disability need not necessarily result in loss of earning from the business and so there is no occasion to apply the same principles". However, physical disability which would result in loss in business has been recognised. Therefore, it has to be noted that in the instant case, the multiple fractures to the left lower limb and to the left forearm is a permanent disability which may not directly result in loss in business but it is a disability which has to be suffered by the respondent-claimant throughout his life. Therefore, compensation on the head of loss of disability has to be awarded though not on the head of loss of future earning capacity. It is pertinent to note that the respondent-claimant was engaged in pharmacy business which would call for long hours of standing and movement in the shop for fetching the medicines involving both the upper limbs as well as the lower limbs. Therefore, disability sustained by the claimant has to be compensated. However, I find that the amount of compensation awarded on the head of loss of amenities is only Rs. 22,000/-. Therefore, the award of Rs. 75,000/- can be towards disability and award of Rs. 40,000/- is towards loss of amenities and discomfort. Further no compensation on the head of loss of future medical expenses is awarded, for which Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. The quantum of compensation awarded in the appeal would not change but the heads of compensation and the manner of awarding it calls for intervention which would not cause any prejudice to the respondent-claimant. Therefore, the total compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- would not call for any intervention in this appeal. I find that having regard to the three complicated fractures sustained by the respondent-claimant who has undergone multiple surgery and has taken follow-up treatment and would also require future surgery for removal of implant an amount of Rs. 45,000/- towards pain and agony is also reasonable for which Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. The award of 8% interest, from the date of claim petition till realisation cannot also be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable as the Tribunal has exercised its discretion having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the respondent-claimant and the pain and suffering that he has undergone. There is no merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal.