RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. ( 1 ) MR. Manish Dalakoti, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N. S. Pundir, Advocate for the respondent. They are heard. ( 2 ) THIS is the claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/addl. District Judge (Second Fast Track Court), nainital vide award dated 10. 2. 2006 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 15 of 2005. ( 3 ) CLAIMANT Pradeep Negi by filing claim petition under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act claimed compensation of Rs. 54,00,000 (rupees fifty-four lakh) for the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident on 16. 11. 2004 when the bus bearing registration No. UP 07-H 5484 dashed him resulting in multiple injuries including crush injuries in his left leg. In spite of several operations, claimant's left leg was amputated. The claimant pleaded that he was a student of MBA and after completing his education, he would have secured a reasonable job for himself with a handsome salary of at least Rs. 20,000 per month. The claimant pleaded that on account of amputation of his left leg, he has become disabled for rest of his life and the same has adversely affected all his future prospects. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT Uttaranchal State Road transport Corporation contested the claim denying the manner of the accident alleged in the claim petition. ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, found that claimant Pradeep negi suffered multiple injuries in the accident which took place on 16. 11. 2004; that the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident led to amputation of his left leg; that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration no. UP 07-H 5484; and that respondent uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation being the owner of the offending vehicle/ bus was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Taking the notional income of rs. 15,000 as the income of the claimant, the Tribunal assessed the loss of earning capacity on account of the amputation of the left leg at Rs. 2,55,000. Accepting the bills and vouchers submitted by claimant in regard to the amount spent on treatment, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 7,00,000 towards medical expenses. In addition, Rs. 50,000 was awarded for physical pain and mental agony; Rs. 2,55,000. Accepting the bills and vouchers submitted by claimant in regard to the amount spent on treatment, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 7,00,000 towards medical expenses. In addition, Rs. 50,000 was awarded for physical pain and mental agony; Rs. 15,000 towards transportation from Dehradun to delhi; Rs. 25,000 for the loss of one year of studies during the period the claimant remained admitted in the hospital and rs. 50,000 for future medical expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 10,95,000 (rupees ten lakh and ninety-five thousand) was awarded as compensation to the claimant. Interest also was awarded at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of the application. ( 6 ) MR. Manish Dalakoti, the learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 10,95,000 only though the appellant, on account of amputation of his left leg, has become disabled for the rest of his life. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC), considering the quantum of compensation involving the amputation of leg, held a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as reasonable compensation. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,55,000 towards loss of earning capacity as against the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 awarded by the apex Court. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 towards the medical expenses as was claimed by the claimant before the Tribunal. We further gather that a sum of Rs. 50,000 has also been awarded for future medical expenses. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding Rs. 50,000 for physical pain and mental suffering and Rs. 25,000 towards loss of one year of studies on account of the hospitalisation of the claimant. ( 8 ) THUS, we are satisfied that Claims tribunal has awarded compensation under all the permissible heads. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ( 10 ) THE appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act for enhancement of compensation awarded by Tribunal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed summarily. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .