A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.

Special leave granted.

2.The appellant, a medical practitioner aged about 36 years, and his mother met with an accident on 10.11.1987. He sustained injuries, four in number, as follows:

(1) Head injury with fracture of right zygoma, which has been treated by an operative elevation.

(2) Injury to the L.S. spine requiring bed rest with analgesics.

(3) Injury to the right knee requiring rest.

(4) Injury, compound right forearm with CLW 8" x 2" over the extensor aspects treated by primary debride-ment and suturing of 7 extensor tendons.

3.The evidence shows that his right hand was crushed and was dangling with blood oozing out. Dr. Mohan Iyer, P.W. 3, who examined him, deposed that there was considerable loss of blood and an emergency operation of the right forearm had to be performed since 10 tendons were cut and were severely damaged with loss of substance. The hand had to be repaired and after operation he required intensive physiotherapy treatment. On further examination on 30.12.1990 it was noticed that his right hand had been rendered functionally disabled and the disablement was of a permanent nature. The movements of the fingers of the right hand were restricted and he, opined the doctor, would have to put up with this disability for the rest of his life. The doctor was, however, unable to assess the percentage of disability sustained by the appellant. Being a medical practitioner it is obvious that the permanent disability suffered by him will affect his professional career because patients will be hesitant to receive treatment from him having regard to his disability. In view of this situation, there can be no doubt that his earning capacity has been greatly impaired.

4.The appellant in the course of his evidence stated that he was, at the material time, serving at the Rudrappa ENT Clinic and General Nursing Home and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000. He was not assessed to income tax. It is true that he did not produce the salary certificate nor did he examine his employer. He also deposed that he spent about Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000 by way of medical expenses. Taking all these facts into consideration the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 58,000 (Rs. 40,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs. 3,000 for medical expenses, conveyance and sundry expenses, Rs. 10,000 for loss of earning and Rs. 5,000 for loss of amenities). The appellant being dissatisfied with the award carried the matter in appeal to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court after evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the award made by the Tribunal was inadequate and raised the compensation to Rs. 1,10,000 to be paid at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition. It is this enhanced award made by the High Court which is questioned by the appellant as inadequate.

5.There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the appellant so far as his monthly income is concerned. Being a medical man aged about 36 years on the date of the accident, the monthly salary received by him cannot be said to be exaggerated. He has candidly admitted that he was not assessed to tax. A salary of Rs. 3,000 per month to a medical practitioner cannot be said to be on the higher side. We, therefore, accept his statement in this behalf. We also accept the assessment at Rs. 40,000 towards pain and suffering. However, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity is very much on the lower side. The injury to the right hand, which has left a permanent disability and which has affected the functioning of the limb and in particular the fingers, is a serious handicap to a medical practitioner. Patients would be reluctant to go to him for treatment and, therefore, the loss of earning capacity would be substantial. Even if we were to assume that it would reduce his earning capacity by 50 per cent and even if we go by his earnings at the date of the accident, the monthly loss would come to Rs. 1,500, i.e., Rs. 18,000 per annum. If this monthly loss of earning is multiplied by 10 years purchase factor the compensation would work out to Rs. 1,80,000. To that must be added the compensation allowed under certain other heads, namely, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, etc. The total amount comes to Rs. 2,38,000.

6.We, therefore, allow this appeal and modify the order of the High Court by substituting the figure of Rs. 2,38,000 in place of the figure of Rs. 1,10,000. The rest of the order passed by the High Court will remain intact. The appellant will also be entitled to costs which we quantify at Rs. 5,000. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.