JUDGMENT Ravi V. Hosmani, J. - Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2015 in MVC No.3801/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-1) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') and the parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 17.03.2014, the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 42/L.7263. At about 2.30 p.m. when it was near Janapada Loka on BM. Road, the driver of a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KA-42/A 1247 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came from the rear side and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to BGS hospital and thereafter to Apollo Hospital for further treatment. He was inpatient from 17.03.2014 to 05.04.2014. 4. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking for compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- from the owner and the insurer of offending tipper. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 - Insurer entered appearance and filed its written statement denying all the petition averments. The respondent No.2 owner remained absent and was placed ex-parte. 5. The Insurer opposed the claim petition mainly by contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry and that the accident was solely on account of negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider. It contended that the liability, if any, was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Claims Tribunal after framing issues recorded the evidence of the parties. The claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and Dr B. Surendranath Shetty, who treated him as P.W.2. The documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.27 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.1, the driver of the tipper lorry was examined as R.W.1. However, no documents were marked on its behalf. 7. The claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and Dr B. Surendranath Shetty, who treated him as P.W.2. The documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.27 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.1, the driver of the tipper lorry was examined as R.W.1. However, no documents were marked on its behalf. 7. Thereafter the Claims Tribunal passed an award holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry by its driver, hence, respondent No.1 being the insurer and respondent No.2 being the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It assessed the total compensation of Rs.7,87,367/- and awarded the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum (except for future medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-) from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 8. Seeking for further enhancement the claimant has filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that due to the nature of the injury suffered and the permanent disability caused, the claimant who was a professional cameraman, director of movies, documentaries etc., is unable to perform the same and has lost entire earning capacity. But the Claims Tribunal has assessed compensation on notional terms which called for enhancement. He further contended that apart from the income from his profession, the claimant was also getting income from HUF business, which was not taken into account by the Claims Tribunal for assessment of compensation. It was further contended that even though the claimant had led evidence to prove that he had spent considerable amount of money towards hiring attendants, for physiotherapy and for conveyance etc., the Tribunal has assessed the same on notional terms. Hence, on all the above grounds, he sought for enhancement of compensation. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/insurer submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and further submitted that there are no good grounds for further enhancement and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and perused the record. It is seen that the claimant has suffered the following injuries: a. Fracture of left Ilium. b. Fracture of anterior and posterior column of left acetabulum. c. Fracture of superior and inferior rami. d. Left side rib fractures (4th -11th ribs). 11. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and perused the record. It is seen that the claimant has suffered the following injuries: a. Fracture of left Ilium. b. Fracture of anterior and posterior column of left acetabulum. c. Fracture of superior and inferior rami. d. Left side rib fractures (4th -11th ribs). 11. He has also undergone multiple operations, but suffers from permanent physical disability. Considering the number of fractures, compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering would be on the lower side, the same is enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/-. 12. Insofar as medical expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the entire amount, as indicated in the medical bills produced before it. Since there is no justification for awarding any extra amount, the award of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses is retained. 13. For assessing the compensation towards future loss of income, the extent of permanent physical disability and its effect on the earning capacity has to be determined. The measure of compensation should be to provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering ( JAGDISH Vs. MOHAN & OTHERS, (2018) 4 SCC 571 ). In this regard, the claimant/appellant has apart from examining himself, also examined the Doctor who treated him as PW-2. On examination of the claimant, PW-2 found the following disabilities. "Left hip movements:- -Flexion Extension Arc : 70 Restricted - Abduction Adduction Arc : 40 Restricted - Rotation Arc : 60 Restricted Muscle power around left hip:- -Flexions : Grade III -Extensors : Grade III - Abductions : Grade III -Adductions : Grade III -Rotator Muscles : Grade III He has difficulty to climb steps and slope, he has difficulty to stand over left lower limb and has difficulty to take turns. He is not able to squat, not able to sit Cross-legged and not able to kneel, limp and bend over left side. X-rays of Pelvis was taken and it showed old united fracture of left pelvic bones with implants-insitu. Mild left hip joint space reduction seen with marginal osteoplytas. Mild osteo-arthritis left bb." 14. On consideration of the same, PW-2 has assessed the limb disability at 63% and whole body disability at 21%. In an injury claim the loss of earning capacity consequent to the permanent physical disability suffered is required to be determined. Mild left hip joint space reduction seen with marginal osteoplytas. Mild osteo-arthritis left bb." 14. On consideration of the same, PW-2 has assessed the limb disability at 63% and whole body disability at 21%. In an injury claim the loss of earning capacity consequent to the permanent physical disability suffered is required to be determined. For assessing loss of earning capacity, the occupation of the claimant and the nature of the permanent disability has an effect on the earning capacity is relevant. While doing so due weightage has to be given to the assessment made by the Doctor who is a Specialist. In the case on hand, it is elicited from the cross examination of PW-2 that fractures suffered by the claimant are united. It is also elicited that the claimant can discharge his duties with difficulty. Under such circumstances, the claim of the claimant that there is 100% loss of earning capacity cannot be accepted. At the same time the extent of permanent physical disability also cannot be ignored. The Claims Tribunal while assessing the compensation has considered the loss of earning capacity at 15%. In our opinion such moderation, especially in the light of the medical evidence on record cannot be justified. However, it would be safe to assess the loss of earning capacity at 21% as deposed to by the doctor P.W.2. 15. Though claimant has contended that there is total loss of earnings both from his profession and income from HUF business and produced the annual returns of income in support of the same, it is seen that the income from HUF business is by hiring camera and other cinematographic equipment. Since the permanent physical disability cannot be said to have any effect on this income, only the income from the profession of the claimant can be considered. From perusal of Ex.P.11, P.12, and Ex.P.13 i.e., the income tax returns, the gross income declared is Rs.4,87,020/- for the year 2012- 2013, Rs.4,19,174/- for the year 2013-2014 and Rs.3,25,482/- for the year 2014-2015. Considering the peculiar profession of the claimant, it is safe to determine the annual income by taking the average of the income for the above mentioned three years. The same comes to Rs.4,10,558/-. The monthly income would be Rs.33,207/-. The claimant was aged about 59 years on the date of the accident. The multiplier applicable would be 9'. Considering the peculiar profession of the claimant, it is safe to determine the annual income by taking the average of the income for the above mentioned three years. The same comes to Rs.4,10,558/-. The monthly income would be Rs.33,207/-. The claimant was aged about 59 years on the date of the accident. The multiplier applicable would be 9'. Thus, the total loss of future earnings would be Rs.33,207/- X 21% X 12 X 9= Rs.7,53,134.75/-. The same is rounded of to Rs.7,53,135/- and awarded to the claimant. 16. Considering the extent of permanent disability and the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the duration of the treatment and recuperation, the compensation towards loss of income during laid up period is assessed for a period of six months i.e., Rs.33,207/- X 6 = Rs.1,99,242/- and the same is awarded to the claimant. 17. The claimant has marked the bill for Rs.33,000/- towards physiotherapy as Ex.P.21. Likewise, he has produced bill for Rs.1,950/- towards ambulance charges as Ex.P.22. The claimant has also produced vouchers for a total Rs.1,12,500/- as Ex.P.23. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered and duration of treatment, there cannot be any doubt about the claimant having spent money towards the same. Hence, sum of Rs.33,000/- towards physiotherapy, Rs.1,950/- towards ambulance charges and Rs.1,12,500/- towards attendant charges is awarded. 18. The petitioner aged 59 years suffered fractures of 4th - 11th ribs and also suffered fracture of superior and inferior rami and fracture of Ilium and acetabulum which would cause pain and discomfort. Considering this in the light of extent of permanent physical disability, award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities would meet the ends of justice. 19. Though the claimant has sought an award of Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses, it is seen that PW-2 has not provided any particulars to justify the said amount. The Claims Tribunal by taking into account the fact that the implants are required to be removed awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses. There are no acceptable reasons for enhancement, hence the same amount is retained. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The claimant's appeal for enhancement is allowed in part. ii. There are no acceptable reasons for enhancement, hence the same amount is retained. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The claimant's appeal for enhancement is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 02.12.2015 is modified and in substitution to the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal the claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.12,29,827/- as against Rs.7,87,367/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum fro the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier. iii. The respondent No.1 and 2 are held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant jointly and severally. iv. Considering the fact that the claimant is educated the entire enhanced amount is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. v. No order as to costs.