Singh, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has preferred these appeals against final judgment and order dated 6.9.2012 whereby the High Court of Karnataka has dismissed appeal preferred by the appellant bearing MFA No.2386 of 2007 (MV) preferred for enhancement of compensation allowed in his favour by the judgment and award dated 11.12.2006 in MVC No.1322 of 2005 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Member of Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hassan, and partly allowed appeal preferred by the respondent-Insurance Company bearing MFA No.6612 of 2007.

3. The appellant is an advocate by profession. On 17.4.2005 while he was riding his motor bike and his wife was a pillion rider with him, he met with an accident involving motor bike of respondent No.2. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries over his hands, legs and spinal cord. He preferred claim petition on 5.12.2005 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lacs) with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the respondent by way of just compensation for injuries, losses, medical expenses, loss of income due to disability, etc. By judgment and award dated 11.12.2006 the Tribunal considered the relevant facts as well as evidence and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,87,300/- (rupees eight lacs eighty seven thousand and three hundred only). This included an amount of Rs.6,17,500/- (rupees six lacs seventeen thousand and five hundred only) on the head of ‘loss of income due to disability’. The Tribunal also allowed interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment.

4. As noted earlier, the matter was taken in appeal to the High Court of Karnataka through two appeals, one preferred by the appellant complaining against inadequacy of the compensation and the other by the Insurance Company for reduction of the same. By the impugned judgment, the High Court reduced compensation of Rs.6,17,500/- (rupees six lacs seventeen thousand and five hundred only) under the head ‘loss of income due to disability’ to Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) and accordingly the total amount of Rs.8,87,300/- (rupees eight lacs eighty seven thousand and three hundred only) was reduced by a sum of Rs.4,67,500/- (rupees four lacs sixty seven thousand and five hundred only). The appeal of the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation was dismissed without interfering with award of compensation on eight other heads.

5. Before noticing the submissions it is useful to indicate that there is no dispute over most of the relevant facts except what should have been accepted as the annual income of the appellant, what would be appropriate multiplier and what should be taken to be the loss of income due to admitted disability. At the time of the accident appellant was aged about thirty six years.

6. The accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. On the basis of the evidence of a treating physician, PW 36 a Neuro Surgeon, at the time of admission in the hospital it was found that the appellant had no strength in hands and legs, there was full loss of sensation below the neck and the urinary track was blocked. The Tribunal has taken a note of all the relevant details and injuries in paragraph 11 of its judgment and award wherein it has been accepted on the basis of medical evidence that the appellant has sustained whole body disability of 50%. That paragraph 11 reads as follows :

“11. PW 3 Dr. Dhananjaya I Bhat the Neuro Surgeon of Mangala Hospital has deposed the condition of the petitioner on 19.4.2005 at Sanjeevini Hospital, Hassan for having admitted the history of accident. On examination found that there was no strength in hands and legs, full loss of sensation below the neck, the urinary track was blocked. MRI revealed injury on neck spine, for which he was treated between 1½ to two monts as inpatient. The c