Anil Kumar Sharma, J.;— We have heard Sri B.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. Aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant by M.A.C.T./A.D.J. Court no. 8, District Aligarh in M.A.C.P. No. 174 of 2002 the instant appeal has been filed alleging that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the disability of the appellant and his medical bills/receipts have been wrongly discarded by the Tribunal. It appears that in an accident dated 12.03.1998 the appellant who was riding on his scooter was dashed by truck bearing registration no. U.P. 70K/9561 by its driver driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The left leg of the appellant was crushed and he also suffered injuries on other parts of the body. He was admitted in J.N. Medical College for treatment. He also took treatment in Shanti Nursing Home and in the treatment a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- were spent and appellant has become permanent disabled as his toe of left leg had to be amputated. He filed claim petition for an award of Rs. 6,05,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the aforesaid truck. The claim petition was contested by the insurance company. The owner and insurer of the truck did not contest the case. The claimant adduced his oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal after hearing the parties counsel and perusal of record has partly allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 30,834/- together with simple interest @ 6% per annum. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Tribunal has illegally discarded the disability certificate of the appellant in which his permanent disability to the extent of 42% had been shown and has not taken into consideration all the bills, receipts etc. filed by him. On perusal of the award we find that disability certificate was filed by the appellant but it was neither proved by examining the doctor nor connected with any other evidence. The disability certificate in motor accident claim petition is required to be considered by the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) TAC 785. The Apex Court has summarized the pleas in paragraph 13 for the guidance of the Tribunal and the courts which is reproduced as under: 13. The Apex Court has summarized the pleas in paragraph 13 for the guidance of the Tribunal and the courts which is reproduced as under: 13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors." In view of the above legal position we find that the learned Tribunal has not all erred in ignoring the disability certificate filed by the claimant-appellant. On perusal of the record regarding non-consideration of the bills, vouchers, receipts etc. in respect of expenses incurred in the treatment of the appellant, we find that learned Tribunal has considered each and every documents filed by the appellant in support of his claim. The Tribunal has allowed compensation only for proper receipts/cash memos and has discarded the estimates/quotations, and in few of them even the name of the patient was not written. We are not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant where he has submitted that appellant was working as Junior Engineer in Jal Nigam (Water Works) and his left toe had to be amputated on account of injury sustained by him in the accident, so such meagre amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,804/- which is grossly inadequate should not have been awarded. The expenses incurred in the medical treatment has least relation with the post or status of the injured. 30,804/- which is grossly inadequate should not have been awarded. The expenses incurred in the medical treatment has least relation with the post or status of the injured. The appellant has undertaken treatment in medical college and it has not been shown that he had made any payment in the medical college. It is pertinent to note here that appellant has not claimed that on account of injuries he has lost earning capacity or it has reduced to some extent. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- for balance diet and conveyance etc. It is trite law that compensation in motor accident claim petition should not be a bonanza for the claimant or source of profit nor it should be pitfall on him. It should be just and fair. There is no There is no straight jacket formula, so there is always a guess work to calculate just and fair compensation. In view of above, appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. _____________