BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 31. 1. 1997 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, durg, in Claim Case No. 91 of 1995. ( 2 ) CLAIMANT B. Rama Rao (22) was a student of II year in Engineering College, bilaspur. On 3. 7. 1995, he was riding Hero puch moped with Bhima Yadav as a pillion rider and was going from Bhilai towards raipur. They met with an accident when truck bearing registration No. BR 13-G 7872, coming from opposite direction, hit the moped. The truck was owned by Gayaprasad Gupta and driven by Anil Kumar. In this accident, claimant received serious injuries which included fractures in both of his legs. His left leg below thigh joint had to be amputated. Consequently, claim petition was preferred before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg for compensation of Rs. 20,25,000. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS filed their replies and denied the entire allegations against them. It was denied that the vehicle was driven negligently. Insurance company stated that the claim was based on presumptions and assumptions, therefore, it was not liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place on 3. 7. 1995 when the truck driven rashly and negligently, hit the moped of the claimant as a result of which he became disabled. Consequently, award of Rs. 7,00,000 has been made carrying interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of award. Appellant insurance company is not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal. ( 5 ) FROM the pleadings, it transpires that the appellant had sought permission from the court under section 170 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, to defend the case on all available grounds, but this does not appear to be so. Mr. P. Diwakar, counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that appellant cannot assail the award on the grounds other than available to it under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the absence of permission from the Tribunal under section 170 of the Act in terms of supreme Court's decision in Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1998 acj 513 (SC ). Ltd. , 1998 acj 513 (SC ). However, we examined the award on merits as well with the assistance of learned counsel for parties. The substance of the matter is that the claimant was a student of II year in Engineering College, Bilaspur. Obviously, he had a bright future and would have earned considerable income for himself and his family. Further, he had bright future prospects in life, but due to this injury at this stage, his life spirits have dampened to a great extent at this young age when his left leg has been amputated and disability is to the extent of 75 per cent. True it is that he will live, but it would not be full of pleasures which he would otherwise have but for this accident and disability. Taking into consideration all these factors, we are of the opinion that award of compensation in this case is quite reasonable along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, instead of 12 per cent per annum. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Costs on parties. Appeal dismissed. .