ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimant aggrieved by an award dated 15. 3. 2000 passed in M. A. C. C. No. 119 of 1998 by the Third M. A. C. T. , chhatarpur. ( 2 ) RAJ Kishore in a road accident dated 10. 12. 1993 while he was travelling on a hero Honda, No. UP 93-3987, was dashed by truck No. DIA 523 driven by deceased dayanand. Raj Kishore suffered injury in his teft leg. It was amputated above knee level. Total compensation of Rs. 18,02,000 was claimed. It was alleged that the appellant Raj Kishore was earning Rs. 2,500 every month. He used to take tuitions. He is M. A. in History. He wanted to appear in the examination of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police to be held next year. ( 3 ) IT was submitted that claimant was taken from Chhatarpur to Delhi where he was admitted on 12. 12. 1993 till 2. 3. 1994 in the hospital. He remained in Delhi along with his parents, brother and servant. Total expenditure in conveyance, treatment and diet, etc. , was Rs. 80,000. It was further alleged in the claim petition that claimant was a brilliant student, had bright future prospects which has been darkened owing to amputation of his left leg. ( 4 ) CLAIMS Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,08,200, hence this appeal has been preferred for enhancement. ( 5 ) MR. Harvinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that considering the nature of injury suffered and total disablement to the extent of 80 per cent on account of amputation of left leg above knee level, the compensation which has been awarded is inadequate. The Claims tribunal has awarded compensation in lump sum whereas claimant was treated at delhi and for treatment, attendant, special diet and for pain and suffering, amount has not been awarded separately. Thus, compensation be suitably enhanced considering that claimant was taking tuitions. He was 26 years of age at the time of accident. ( 6 ) MR. B. D. Jain and Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have submitted that no case for interference is made out, hence appeal be dismissed. Thus, compensation be suitably enhanced considering that claimant was taking tuitions. He was 26 years of age at the time of accident. ( 6 ) MR. B. D. Jain and Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have submitted that no case for interference is made out, hence appeal be dismissed. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that claimant has suffered amputation of his left leg owing to the injury suffered in the accident. It is also not in dispute as provided under the workmen's Compensation Act that extent of disability owing to amputation of left leg comes to 80 per cent permanent disability. The appellant has to walk with the help of crutches for remaining part of life. He was postgraduate and wanted to become Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. His future chances of obtaining proper employment are lost, thus we find that 80 per cent permanent disability has been suffered by claimant. ( 8 ) COMING to the question of monthly income. There is evidence on record to show that the claimant was taking tuitions. He was earning as stated by him a sum of rs. 2,500 per month from tuitions. He was preparing for PSC exams to be held next year. In the circumstances we find that it would be safe to assess income as per his qualification and capacity and the evidence at Rs. 2,000 per month. He has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80 per cent, thus total loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 1,600 per month and annual loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 1,600 x 12 = Rs. 19,200. Age of the claimant was 26 years at the time when accident took place. Appropriate multiplier at the age of 26 is 18, hence we apply multiplier of 18, thus total loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 19,200 x 18 = Rs. 3,45,600. ( 9 ) ON account of pain and suffering we award compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant. It is clear from the statement of the claimant Raj Kishore, CW 1, that he was treated in Safdarjung Hospital, New delhi, discharge ticket, Exh. P2, has been placed on record, which supports statement of the claimant that he was treated at delhi. He was admitted on 12. 12. 1993 and discharged on 2. 3. 50,000 to the claimant. It is clear from the statement of the claimant Raj Kishore, CW 1, that he was treated in Safdarjung Hospital, New delhi, discharge ticket, Exh. P2, has been placed on record, which supports statement of the claimant that he was treated at delhi. He was admitted on 12. 12. 1993 and discharged on 2. 3. 1994 as mentioned in the discharge ticket, thus he was treated at delhi for a period of 2 months and 20 days. Thus it is apparent that expenditure must have been incurred in the aforesaid duration by the claimant. Claimant stated that on account of taxi fare a sum of Rs. 4,000 was paid, receipt Exh. P5, has been placed on record. We award Rs. 4,000 on account of travelling expenses from Chhatarpur to delhi in Maruti van. ( 10 ) ON account of attendant expenditure in Delhi in the aforesaid period we award a sum of Rs. 10,000 and for coming back to Chhatarpur we award a sum of rs. 2,000. On account of special diet we award a sum of Rs. 6,000, on account of treatment expenses we award a sum of rs. 10,000, thus total compensation comes to Rs. 3,45,600 + Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 4,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 6,000 + rs. 10,000 = Rs. 4,27,600 (rupees four lakh twenty-seven thousand and six hundred ). The enhanced compensation to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. Amount be paid, as prayed, within a period of 3 months. Liability is that of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as determined by the Tribunal, which has not been assailed in this appeal. ( 11 ) RESULTANTLY, appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. .