Anil Kumar Sharma, J.;— This is an appeal preferred by appellant Mukh Lal s/o Sone Lal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Etawah, dated 23.12.2000 in MACP No. 3 of 1997, Mukh Lal Vs. Ramesh Chandra and another. By the aforesaid impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 57,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This award is being challenged by the appellant on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not sufficient and inadequate for the reasons that the Tribunal has based its findings on the surmises and conjectures. According to the appellant, he was going to Ausharabad on 27.6.1996 in bus no. U.P. 75A/3616, which met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver. The appellant suffered grievous injuries in the legs and had been permanently disabled on account of the aforesaid accident; that the appellant remained confined to bed for about 23 days and was discharged with 10% permanent disability in comparison to the other leg. It is stated that the appellant was 30 years at the time of accident, but the Tribunal by adopting a wrong multiplier of age and ignoring future prospects as well as physical and mental loss for estimated 40 years has awarded insufficient amount of compensation. It has been vehemently argued in the aforesaid circumstances that the awarded compensation is liable to be enhanced to the extent of Rs. 15,35,000/- thus: @ Hindi @ The appellant has relied upon the judgement rendred by the Apex Court in 2012, Law Suit (SC) 12 Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others wherein it has been held that: "S. 166- Compensation - Permanent disability - Loss of future earning- Basis of determination of - Estimation of functional disability or loss of earning capacity- Impact/Effect of permanent disability on work/earning capacity, held, is to be judged with reference to nature of work being performed by person suffering the disability- Same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways." We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It appears from the evidence on record that appellant Mukh Lal was a mason. He suffered fracture in both of his legs due to the accident caused by the driver of the bus. It appears from the evidence on record that appellant Mukh Lal was a mason. He suffered fracture in both of his legs due to the accident caused by the driver of the bus. He is said to have been admitted in Anand Poly Clinic Civil Lines, Etawah for 14 days and spent about Rs. 15000/- in his treatment. It is also stated that he has filed two disability certificates dated 31.1.97 and 11.3.97. Photo stat copies of which are appended along with the memo of appeal. The disability certificates show that the appellant has suffered only 10% disablement due to fracture in his legs above the ankle, which has nothing to do with the knee joints. It appears that the appellant had not taken up regular physiotherapy exercises as prescribed by the Doctor, therefore, he is himself to blame if there is any stiffness in his knee joint. For all the reasons stated above, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, as consequence thereof the award is upheld. A perusal of the aforesaid certificates as well as the statements before the Tribunal also show that due to injuries received just above his ankle, he is unable to sit due to stiffness in his knee joint. We have also perused the prescriptions of his treatment appended along with the memo of appeal, but we fail to understand as to how he is unable to sit due to fracture received in his leg above the ankle. His exact words in his statement are that : @ Hindi @ Though he submitted various bills for treatment amounting Rs. 15000/-, the Tribunal awarded him Rs. 20,000/- as the total expenses for medical treatment and fracture. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 18' on his age of 30 years. The reimbursement is to be made on actual loss mental and physical agony undergone and not estimated on future expenses as thus would be in the realm of surmises and conjectures and not qualified on actual basis. The case relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and are clearly distinguishable. The victim in the case of Mohan Soni (supra) was a cartpuller. He was 55 years of age at the relevant time of accident whose left leg had to be amputated. The case relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and are clearly distinguishable. The victim in the case of Mohan Soni (supra) was a cartpuller. He was 55 years of age at the relevant time of accident whose left leg had to be amputated. His monthly income was assessed at Rs. 2,400/- and disability at 50% therefore, the Triunal in that case took 50% as loss of earning capacity and applying the multiplier of 11' on his age awarded him Rs. 2,03,400.00 as compensation. However, the instant case is not a case of amputation but of simple fracture in his legs above ankle. The claimant has in this case claimed that due to his fracture he is unable to move and has become a dead weight on his family. But we find from his own statement that he complains a bit of stiffness in his knee joint due to which he is not able to sit in ukudoon posture i.e. the posture on his hams with soles of feet touching the ground. He is not confined to lead or a dead weight on family as he is stated to take the cattles out for grazing in the fields. The Tribunal has also taken cognizance of his loss of 10% of earning capacity in future in awarding compensation to him. Therefore, his statement that he can not do any other work is incorrect. The disability certificates show that the appellant has suffered only 10% disablement due to fracture in his legs above the ankle, which has nothing to do with the knee joints. It appears that the appellant had not taken up regular physiotherapy exercises as prescribed by the Doctor, therefore, he is himself to blame if there is any stiffness in his knee joint. For all the reasons stated above, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, as consequence thereof the award is upheld. The appeal sans merit and is dismissed accordingly. _____________