Judgment 1. These two appeals respectively by the Corporation and the injured claimant are directed against the same judgment and award dated 2ndJune 2007, passed in MVC No.3939/2006, by the V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-20), (for short, ‘Tribunal’). While the Corporations has filed the appeal for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,74,000/-with 6% interest per annum, awarded in favour of the claimant is on the higher side, the injured claimant has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation of Rs.4,74,000/-awarded by Tribunal is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that when the injured claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw, bearing registration No.KA-02/B-5588, on Robertson Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore, at about 09:10 P.M on 21-01-2006, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of a BMTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-01/F-468. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, where he took treatment as in-patient for some period. 3. It is the case of the injured claimant that, he was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in causing the grievous injures and that he was working as a Supervisor in Amzar, Dubai, U.A.E., and earning a sum of more than Rs.42,000/-per month. On account of the injuries sustained, he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably. 4. On account of the injuries sustained, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 33,50,000/-against the Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 2nd June, 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,74,000/-under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Corporation is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation and the claimant also is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. 4,74,000/-under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Corporation is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation and the claimant also is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. We heard Shri. D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Corporation and Shri. Rasheed Khan, learned counsel appearing for injured claimant, gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of both the appeals carefully and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Corporation vehemently submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding compensation towards the loss of future income for the reason that, the claimant himself in the cross-examination has stated that as on the date of his evidence, he is having business at Dubai. Therefore, when there is no loss of future income, question of awarding compensation under the said head is not justifiable. Further, he submits that the injured claimant was hospitalized only for three days i.e. from 21-01-2006 to 23-01-2006. But, the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding exhorbitant compensation of Rs. 50,000/-towards loss of income during treatment, taking into consideration that he would have been away from work for a period of five months. When the claimant has taken treatment only for three days, the follow-up treatment could not have been more than three months. Therefore, he submits that the compensation under the said head is also liable to be reduced considerably. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified, by reducing the total compensation considerably. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimant submits that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation under the said heads and in fact, the compensation awarded towards loss of income during treatment period and other heads is on the lower side for the reason that he was in fact, earning 3,500/ Dhirans in Dubai currency, which in Indian Rupee comes to Rs. 42,000/-per month and in support of the same, he had also produced the documentary evidence at Ex.P103. Therefore, taking into consideration the said documentary evidence, he is entitled to enhancement of compensation under loss of future income and also loss of income during treatment period. 8. 42,000/-per month and in support of the same, he had also produced the documentary evidence at Ex.P103. Therefore, taking into consideration the said documentary evidence, he is entitled to enhancement of compensation under loss of future income and also loss of income during treatment period. 8. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the only point that arise for our consideration in these two appeal is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is excessive and liable to be reduced? After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 82,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs. 6,000/-towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs. 20,000/-towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and Rs. 10,000/-towards future medication. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. 9. However, so far as the compensation awarded towards loss of future income and loss of income during treatment period is concerned, we have no hesitation in observing that the Tribunal committed error in awarding compensation towards loss of future income, when, in fact, the claimant himself has categorically in his cross examination, stated that as on the date of giving evidence, he was having business at Dubai. Hence, there is no question of awarding any compensation towards loss of future income. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. However, the claimant has sustained segmental fracture left tibia with undisplaced facture lateral condyle left tibia and PW2, Doctor has opined that the claimant has suffered permanent physical disability of 54% towards right lower limb and 18% towards whole body and the claimant has to endure this disability for the rest of his life. Therefore, he is entitled to some reasonable compensation towards disability and not towards loss of future income. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards disability as against Rs. 2,81,000/-awarded by Tribunal towards loss of future income. 10. Therefore, he is entitled to some reasonable compensation towards disability and not towards loss of future income. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards disability as against Rs. 2,81,000/-awarded by Tribunal towards loss of future income. 10. Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has re-assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 10,000/-. The same in our opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper and we accept the same. However, the Tribunal slipped into an error in coming to the conclusion that the claimant must have taken bed rest and follow up treatment for a period of five months. The same cannot be believed nor the same is supported by any oral or documentary evidence. The claimant has sustained injuries as stated above and was hospitalized only for a period of three days i.e. from 21-01-2006 to 23-01-2006. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the number of days the claimant took treatment as in-patient, etc, we come to the conclusion that at best, the claimant would have been away from work for a period of not more than three months. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs. 30,000/-towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per month for a period of three months, as against Rs. 50,000/-awarded by Tribunal under the said head. 11. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 2,23,000/-as against Rs. 4,74,000/-awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be reduction of compensation by Rs. 2,51,000/-. 12. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Corporation is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the injured claimant is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 2nd June 2007, passed in MVC No.3939/2006, by the V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-20), is hereby modified, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 4,74,000/-awarded by Tribunal, to Rs. 2,23,000/-(reduction being Rs. 2,51,000/-) with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The impugned judgment and award dated 2nd June 2007, passed in MVC No.3939/2006, by the V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-20), is hereby modified, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 4,74,000/-awarded by Tribunal, to Rs. 2,23,000/-(reduction being Rs. 2,51,000/-) with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining comcpensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. The apportionment of compensation ordered by Tribunal would be proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court. The statutory amount in deposit by the Corporation is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly.