S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal" ) is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 12. 7. 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at bangalore whereby and whereunder it allowed an appeal preferred by respondent No. 2, Insurance Company, in part, reducing the amount of compensation towards loss of future earning from Rs. 4,53,600/- to rs. 67,500/ -.

( 3 ) APPELLANT was aged 15 years when he met with an accident on 14. 9. 1998 as a result whereof he sustained serious injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% of his left lower limb which had to be amputated. Before the Tribunal, several witnesses, namely, PW1 to PW5 were examined to prove that at the material time, appellant had been running a poultry farm independently. A large number of documents being Exhibit p. 1 to Exhibit P. 16 were also brought on record. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, relying on or on the basis of the said materials brought on record by the appellant, held :

"thus, it is evident from the oral evidence of PW3, coupled with documentary evidence that the petitioner by virtue of accident, has suffered permanent physical disability amounting to 70% on account of amputation of his left lower limb. PW2 Fakruddin Nadaf, Proprietor of poultry farm has stated in his evidence that the petitioner has undergone training to run poultry farm as his assistant. Exh. P-8 certificate issued by him, further speaks that petitioner is capable of running poultry farm independently. Eh. P-20 are the vouchers in favour of the petitioner for having purchased the birds from time to time and the feeds purchased thereunder. Thus, from the evidence of PW2, coupled with Exh. P-8 to P-10, it is evident that the petitioner was running poultry farm. According to the petitioner he was earning rs. 5000-00 per month. Taking into consideration the age, date of accident and the avocation undertaken by the petitioner, I consider his monthly earnings at Rs. 3,000/- as against rs. 5,000/- claimed by the petitioner. Since the disability suffered by the petitioner is 70% on account of amputation of left lower limb, loss of earnings per month will be Rs. 3000 x 70/100 = rs. 2100/- and for 12 months it will be Rs. 2100 x 12 = Rs. 25,200/ -. Since the petitioner was aged 15 years, the proper multiplier as reported in ILR 1996 Kar. on page No. 2127 will be 18. Hence, rs. 25,200/- x 18 = Rs. 4,53,600/- and that will be net loss of earnings and I award that amount for the same. "

( 4 ) AN appeal was preferred thereagainst by the owner of the vehicle, i. e. , respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 jointly. Later on, however, the respondent No. 1 was relegated to the position of the respondent in the said appeal. The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment, reduced the amount of compensation under the head 'loss of future income', stating :

"by taking note of the aforesaid judgment of this court and the submission of the learned counsel for the insured in so far as the "loss of future earning capacity" is concerned, the Tribunal could not have taken the notional income at Rs. 3,000/-, but it should have been taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and based on such figure, if we work out, the "loss of future earning capacity" comes to rs. 67,500/- and this we substitute in the place of rs. 4,53,600/ -. "

( 5 ) MS. Kiran Suri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the High Court ignored the fact that the appellant, although minor at the relevant time, had been running a poultry farm and as his monthly income could be assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month and, thus, the High Court committed a serious error in computing the same at rs. 15,000/- per annum. It was urged that the loss of future earning capacity has wrongly been calculated at Rs. 67,500/- and even on the said basis the amount of compensation should have been calculated t