Honble MISRA, J.–This appeal is for enhancement of the amount of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant on his right leg due to the accident caused by the jeep bearing No. MRH-152 owned by the respondent No.2-Indian Air Lines. The amount which has been awarded to the appellant is Rs. 18,000/- only which has been assailed by the appellant on the plea that although the medical evidence indicates that the appellant had sustained severe injuries on his right leg and the bones were broken into pieces as a result of which he is not in a position to sit cross-legged or squat on the floor and his leg has also been amputated a sum of Rs. 18,000/- only has been awarded to him. (2). Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been able to prove that he had spent Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment and only Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded towards loss of income although he has been able to prove after adduccing evidence to the effect that he was running a cloth-shop where he used to sit and sell the cloth and hence reasonable inference should have been drawn that he was earning at least Rs. 1500/- per month, yet no amount has been awarded to him towards loss of income or future income. It has also been submitted that in a case of similar nature more than a lac of rupees has been awarded time and again to anyone who suffers such injury on the vital part of his body. (3). Countering the aforesaid submission of the respondent- Insurance Companys advocate-Shri Virendra Agarwal has submitted that Rs. 18,000/- was awarded to the appellant in the year 1989 alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum and considering the money value in the year 1989, the amount cannot be treated as meagre and should be held as a sufficient amount. (4). Having considered over the matter, I do not feel persuaded to accept the argument of the counsel for the respondents- Insurance Company that Rs. 18000/- was a sufficient amount even if it was awarded in the year 1989 for AW-4-Dr. (4). Having considered over the matter, I do not feel persuaded to accept the argument of the counsel for the respondents- Insurance Company that Rs. 18000/- was a sufficient amount even if it was awarded in the year 1989 for AW-4-Dr. Shalendra Kumar Sharma has categorically deposed on which he has not been cross- examined that the the appellants right leg and the bones of the right leg of the appellant were broken into pieces which has affected his mobility and his flexibility. The inference which can be certainly drawn for this deposition and on perusal of the injury report it clearly indicates that the appellant has suffered serious injuries on his right leg and is far from normal which has affected his earning potentiality apart from the disability which he will have to suffer life long. Considering this as also considering the fact that no amount has been awarded to the appellant towards future loss of income who was only aged 24 years at the time of the accident, it is considered just and appropriate to enhance the amount of Rs. 18,000/- to a sum of Rs. one lac for injury suffered by him on his right leg which has held him seriously incapacitated affecting his movement and his capacity to earn his livelihood. Thus the amount of Rs. 18,000/- is enhanced to Rs. one lac which is assessed towards his future loss of income and also him mental agony and permanent disability. (5). The counsel for the appellant however, still feels dissatisfied and has urged that the interest should also be awarded to the appellant on this amount from the date of the filing the claim petition since he has suffered loss of income but in my view this part of the claim of the appellant is not sustainable for the amount of Rs. one lac in any case will earn interest in future also if it is kept in fixed deposit and that amount can be treated as having been awarded to him towards interest and income which he would have otherwise earned in a normal circumstances. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant claiming interest on this amount do not appear to be justified and hence it stands rejected. (6). This appeal for enhancement of compensation thus stands allowed subject to the rejection of claim to interest.