Judgment Gyan Sudha Misra, J.-This appeal has been filed by the appellant Raju for enhancement of the amount of compensation on account of personal injury suffered by him, as a result of which his right leg below the knee has been amputated. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota, has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 2,01,000 only to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment and in the event of failure to make the payment within three months, the appellant has been held entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The Tribunal has further chalked out an arrangement regarding the disbursement of this amount by directing that out of the total compensation amount, Rs. 20,000 shall be deposited in a savings bank account in a nationalised bank and the remaining amount along with the interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of thirty years and the interest occurring thereon shall be paid to the appellant after every three months. No costs have been awarded to claimant-appellant for the proceedings. 2. Since the factum of the accident due to which the claimant-appellant suffered the injury is not under challenge nor it could be challenged that the appellant suffered the injury due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No. RJ 20-C 4952 which hit the scooter, it would not be essential to enter into the scrutiny of evidence in this regard. Suffice it to say that the appellant suffered grave and serious injury on his right leg on account of the accident caused by the aforesaid jeep which hit his scooter which he was driving and consequently his right leg below knee had to be amputated. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota on an analysis and scrutiny of the evidence adduced by claimant has recorded that the claimant was an auto electric mechanic and out of this vocation he earned Rs. 2,000 per month, who had to incur Rs. 50,000 on his treatment. After the accident he is totally incapacitated due to which he has suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. 2,000 per month, who had to incur Rs. 50,000 on his treatment. After the accident he is totally incapacitated due to which he has suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. In regard to the pecuniary loss, the Tribunal has been pleased to record a finding that although the claimant has lost one of his legs he is not totally disabled since he can still continue the job of a mechanic by sitting on the floor and supervising the repair of autorickshaws. Since the claimant was not educated and had no dependency on him, who himself claimed his income as Rs. 2,000 per month, the Tribunal thought it proper that only that amount may be kept in fixed deposit which could fetch Rs. 2,000 by way of interest. 3. Theinsurance company on its part had contended before the Tribunal that the claimant also is guilty of contributory negligence due to which he was injured in the accident but the Claims Tribunal has disbelieved the plea of insurance company and has recorded a finding that the claimant cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence. As there was no cross-appeal preferred by the insurance company challenging this finding, this Court cannot enter into a scrutiny of the plea of contributory negligence while considering the plea of enhancement raised by injured-claimant. Therefore, the only consideration before this Court is whether the claimant who has lost his right leg in the accident has rightly been awarded Rs. 2,01,000 towards compensation due to personal injury suffered by him. 4. Insofar as the amount of compensation towards personal injury is concerned, no error could be pointed out since the claimant himself stated that his income was Rs. 2,000 per month which has been accepted as correct by the Tribunal but the learned Counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis on the plea that the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards future loss of income which has seriously affected the earning potentiality of the claimant as his capacity to work as auto electric mechanic has been impaired. It was submitted by Mr. Sharma on behalf of the appellant that if the claimant had not suffered permanent disability in his leg, his earning capacity was bound to increase in future as it is evident that he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month even at the age of 20 years while working as an auto electric mechanic. It was submitted by Mr. Sharma on behalf of the appellant that if the claimant had not suffered permanent disability in his leg, his earning capacity was bound to increase in future as it is evident that he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month even at the age of 20 years while working as an auto electric mechanic. Elaborating further on this aspect it was argued that the work of electric mechanic is of such a nature where off and on movement and supervision is required and thus by loss of right leg all such movements have been restrained which justifies the claim for enhancement of the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal. To reinforce his submission, he has also relied upon some judicial pronouncements delivered in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. Ram Nath, 2003 ACJ 1766 (Rajasthan); Prahlad Rai vs. Pradeep Kumar, 2003 ACJ 1822 (Rajasthan); and Bhagwan Singh Meena vs. Jai Kishan Tiwari, 1999 ACJ 1200 (Rajasthan). 5. TheCounsel for the respondent insurance company, however, submitted that the amount awarded to the claimant is adequate and completely justified which calls for no interference and further submitted in general that in view of several other decisions dealing with cases of amputation of leg, this amount cannot be held to be meagre. In particular, he relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Jai Bhagwan vs. Laxman Singh, 1994 ACJ 983 (SC), where in a case of personal injury for a claimant aged about 22 years the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 80,000 and in that view of the matter he has submitted that the compensation amount of Rs. 2,0 1,000 cannot be held to be insufficient. 6. It is no doubt true that the basic rule while determining the amount of compensation has to be borne in mind that while the award should be reasonable, this should also be assessed having regard to the amount granted in other comparable cases but at the same time it is difficult to ignore that assessment of damages has to be done in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case wherein pecuniary losses can be determined considering the earning potentiality of the injured-claimant and the non-pecuniary will have to be considered taking in account the dependency and other attaining circumstances. In the instant case considering the degree of permanent disablement and the incapacity resulting into loss of earning capacity, shortened expectancy of life and the loss of amenities of life, it is difficult to ignore that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount on any of these counts and has merely awarded the compensation considering the amount which he was earning by way of his salary. 7. I find substantial force in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount which has been awarded to the claimant on account of pecuniary loss, cannot be treated as a charitable amount from the insurance company as this is his valid and legal due and while doing so, the Tribunal was duty-bound to award reasonable compensation towards non-pecuniary loss also. It is further difficult to accept the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal that the earning capacity of the claimant is not lost since he can continue to work as an auto electric mechanic by sitting on the floor. It is equally difficult to ignore that the appellant who is an unmarried man and was only 20 years of age when he met with the accident losing his leg has not lost the prospect of leading a normal life and the fact that he would never be able to lead an absolutely normal life cannot come within the ambit of the rule of remoteness. The claimant, therefore, has suffered grave personal deprivation at a tender age of 20 years and although any amount of money cannot renew his physical frame, reasonable amount of compensation in terms of money will have to be awarded to him on this count also which has been the consistent view reflected in cases too numerous to cite. 8. Considering all these aspects and having regard to the nature and gravity of the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant, it is considered appropriate to award Rs. 50,000 towards non-pecuniary losses and also an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000 is considered appropriate on account of future loss of income since he is permanently disabled on account of amputation of his right leg. Thus, an additional amount of Rs. 1,50,000 shall be paid to the appellant by the respondent, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. expeditiously. The impugned award thus stands modified. 1,00,000 is considered appropriate on account of future loss of income since he is permanently disabled on account of amputation of his right leg. Thus, an additional amount of Rs. 1,50,000 shall be paid to the appellant by the respondent, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. expeditiously. The impugned award thus stands modified. The prayer of the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal should not be kept in fixed deposit for thirty years is also allowed since the appellant is a major and it is his decision which should prevail in what manner he is going to deal with the amount. This appeal accordingly stands allowed in terms of the modification of the award made hereinabove.