Judgment :

GANGULY, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Assailing the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 12.8.2009, whereby compensation of Rs.52,000/- granted by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs.72,000/-, this appeal claiming higher compensation was filed by the appellant.

4. The Hon'ble High Court has awarded compensation under the following heads:

1. Towards pain and suffering: Rs.20,000/-

2. Loss of income from the period of treatment: Rs.9,000/-

3. Towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges: Rs.8,000/-

4. Towards loss of amenities: Rs.35,000/-

Total: Rs.72,000/- + 8% p.a. interest from the date of the petition till realization.

5. The material facts of the case are that, the appellant, a painter by profession, was 30 years old at the time of sustaining the injury in a road accident which took place on 24th March 2003 while the appellant was standing on the side of Nagavara Ring Road to cross it from south to north. The offending Tempo bearing No.KA-04-C/6030 came at a great speed from west to east and hit the appellant as a result of which he fell down and sustained several injuries. The appellant was rushed to Al-Habeeb Hospital where he was treated. The claim petition was filed on 3rd February, 2006.

6. About the nature of the injury sustained by the appellant, the evidence of PW-2 Dr. S. Ranjanna, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore is very crucial. PW-2 examined the appellant on 26.11.05. As per the wound certificate and X-ray report of Al-Habeeb Hospital, Bangalore, PW-2 noted that the appellant sustained the following injuries:

"(1) Fracture of distal end of left radius with fracture of left ulnar styloid process.

(2) Fracture of distal end of right radius with mild diastases is Radioulnar joint and soft tissue swelling around wrist joint."

7. Even on examination on 26.11.05,which is after two and a half years after the date of incident, PW-2 found the following injuries on the appellant:

(1) Deformity of right wrist

(2) Limitation of right wrist movements by 40%

(3) Limitation of right forearm movements by 30%

(4) Wasting of right forearm muscles by 3 cms

(5) Weak Right hand grip

(6) Limitation of left wrist movement by 25%

(7) Tenderness over left wrist

(8) Instability of left in favour of Radio ulnar joint

(9) Weakness of left hand

8. PW-2 opined that in view of the injuries the appellant cannot perform any hard work, cannot lift any weight and cannot perform any work smoothly and after referring to various guidelines in manual PW-2 opined that the appellant has disability of 33% of right upper limb and 21% to left upper limb and 20% total disability of the whole body. In view of such disability, appellant cannot work as a painter and cannot do any other manual work also. In cross- examination also PW-2 admitted that even if the appellant continues his old vocation as a painter, he has to do it with difficulty.

9. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have failed to incorporate any thing by way of compensation in the category of `loss of future earnings' in spite of recognizing the fact that there is disability of 33% in the right upper limb, 21% in the left upper limb and 20% in respect of the whole body, which does not allow the appellant to paint as he did earlier.

10. The Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a structured formula for the calculation of compensation in accident cases. Section 5 of the Schedule deals with disability in non-fatal accidents and reads as follows:

"5. Disability in non-fatal accidents:

The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents:

Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks.

PLUS either of the following:-

(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applica