Judgment :

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted

2. This Appeal impugns the order of the High Court of Karnataka in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 259 of 2008 dated 20.07.2009, whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation granted by the tribunal to the appellant only to the extent of Rs.34,000/-without disclosing adequate reasons.

3. This Court finds that the High Court did not properly consider the case for enhancement. Thus after condonation of delay, this Court passed an order dated 05.02.2010 as follows:

"....Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

We are prima facie of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted to it for fresh disposal of the Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the petitioner because the High Court has failed to consider the issues relevant for deciding the cases involving claim for compensation.

Issue Notice to the Respondents........"

4. Pursuant thereto show cause notices were issued to the respondents on 17.2.2010 and service was complete.

5. The material facts are that appellant was working as a mason and was aged 50 years at the time of accident. On the fateful day of 08.01.2006, at about 4.30 pm, the appellant was crossing the road near Deepa Nursing Home, K.R. Puram, when a motorcycle, with the registered number plate KA-05-EW-1108 hit him. The motorcycle was being driven by the second respondent (to be known as `R2' hereinafter) at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained bone fractures as well as head and other injuries all over the body. He was taken to the Deepa Nursing Home, Bangalore where he received first aid. He was then shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore (to be known as `Hospital' hereinafter) the same day where he was admitted and received treatment as an inpatient till 21.01.2006. He continued with the follow up treatments for about six months after his discharge.

6. The first Respondent Insurance Company, (to be known as `R1' hereinafter) was also impleaded as a party as the motorcycle was insured with it.

7. By the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (to be known as `Tribunal' hereinafter), the appellant was awarded a compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest @ 7.5%. R1 was made liable to pay the compensation to the appellant.

8. On appeal, the High Court however enhanced the compensation by only Rs.34,000/-awarding a total of Rs.1,89,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

9. On a reading of the High Court order, it is clear that High Court did no consider the appellant's case properly. It accepted the Tribunal's assessment of the body disability at 20% and observed that the Tribunal has paid compensation under the heads "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of earnings during laid up period" on the lower side. However, it awarded an additional compensation only for future medical expenditures and did not deal with the aspect of future loss of earnings at all, which we feel was not a correct approach.

10. This Court finds that "incapacity or disability to earn livelihood would have to be viewed not only in praesenti but in futuro on reasonable expectancies and taking into account deprival of earnings of a conceivable period." This was laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra vs. Randhir Singh and others, (1990) 3 SCC 723. In page 726, para 7, those above quoted observations were made.

11. The Tribunal examined the doctor who supervised the appellant's injuries and administered treatment in the Hospital, Dr. S. Rajanna, as PW2.

12. As per the evidence of PW2, it was proved that the appellant sustained compound fractures in the tibia and fibula bone of the right leg. He also suffered bruises and cuts on his face and some parts of the body. He had to be operated upon and the operation was done on 09.01.2006. Even after his discharge, he was advised follow up treatments and physiotherapy and also exercise for better movement of his