JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the claimant, namely, Master Chaman Bahdur, a minor, through his father Prem Kumar, where through, he, casts a challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, District Solan, H.P., upon, M.A.C. Petition No.:- 17ADJ-II/2 of 2015, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.2,15,542/- along with costs, and, interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer. 2. The compensation assessed upon the claimant, is, stipulated in the hereafter heads:- Pecuniary damages (i) Loss of Future income Rs.33,600/- (ii) Medical Expenses Rs.16,942/- (iii) Transportation Charges Rs.10,000/- (iv) Attendant charges Rs.10,000/- (v) Special diet charges Rs.25,000/- Non Pecuniary damages (i) Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- (ii) Future Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs, 2,15,542/- 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has, contended with much vigour (i) that the apt computation by the learned tribunal, under, the head “Loss of Future income”, and, comprised in a sum of Rs.36,000/-, being grossly minimal, and, in gross disconsonance, with the per centum of disability, entailed upon the claimant, and, as borne in disability certificate embodied in Ex.PW6/A. He contends (ii) that under the aforesaid head, given the claimant being a brilliant student, and, also his holding bright prospects, to, in future, rear, a, handsome income form, his prospective employment, and, whereas the entailment, of, disability in the aforesaid per centum, upon him, rather, hence deterring him, to, rear prospective gains, from, his prospective employment, (iii) thereupon an apt enhancement being made. However, the aforesaid contention, is, grossly mis-maneuvered and does not secure any approbation, from, either Ex.PW6/A, nor from the deposition, in proof whereof, rendered by its author, who stepped into the witness box, as PW6. The reason for making the afore conclusion, is, sparked (a) by Ex.PW6/A, detailing qua the apt crush injuries, as, entailed upon the relevant portion, of the body of the minor claimant, encumbering, a, 7% disability, upon, the minor. Furthermore, it is also detailed therein (b) that the afore per centum, of, disability hence likely to improve or ameliorate, and, a, review stands recommended after two years. Furthermore, it is also detailed therein (b) that the afore per centum, of, disability hence likely to improve or ameliorate, and, a, review stands recommended after two years. The disability certificate, borne in Ex.PW6/A is prepared, much subsequent, to the accident, and, when PW-6 stepped into the witness box, in, proof of the findings borne therein, (c) he in his examination-in-chief, has not rendered any testification, vis-a-vis, the disability entailed, upon, the claimant being permanent in nature, nor he has made any echoings therein qua even after revision thereof, there being no possibility, of its improvement, and, amelioration, (d) whereas, the afore pronouncement were enjoined to be rendered by him, (e) therefore, want, of, occurrence, of, afore pronouncements in the deposition of PW-6, hence, constrains this Court, to, conclude that the per centum of disability entailed, upon, the minor claimant, being temporary in nature, and, there being likelihood, of, its improvement or amelioration. In aftermath, it is to be concluded, that, there being no concomitant permanent loss of income, if any, encumbered, upon, the claimant, from, his prospective employment. The further sequel thereof, is, that the quantification of compensation made vis-a-vis the claimant, under, the head “Loss of future income”, and, borne in a sum of Rs.36,000/-, being both a just and proper assessment. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the minor claimant has also contended with much vigour before this Court (i) that the learned tribunal was enjoined to assess compensation, towards future medical expenses, vis-a-vis, the claimant, given the severity or enormity, of, the disability entailed upon him. However, the aforesaid contention, is rudderless, (b) given PW-6 in his testification rather being enjoined to make echoings, vis-a-vis the magnitude, severity or enormity of the disability besides the injuries entailed, upon, the person of the minor claimant, necessitating incurring of medical expenses in future also, whereas, the aforesaid testification remaining not rendered by PW-6, thereupon, no future medical expenses, were enjoined to assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimant. 5. The learned counsel, appearing for the claimant, has, further contended with much vigour (i) that the amounts awarded under the head, “pain and suffering”, and, towards “future loss of amenities”, being minimal, and, he has strived to secure, from, this Court rather appropriate enhancements thereof. 5. The learned counsel, appearing for the claimant, has, further contended with much vigour (i) that the amounts awarded under the head, “pain and suffering”, and, towards “future loss of amenities”, being minimal, and, he has strived to secure, from, this Court rather appropriate enhancements thereof. However, even the afore striving, is, a mis-befitting endeavour, as, the quantum and magnitude besides enormity, of, the disability, entailed upon the person of the claimant, and, as proven by PW-6, make displays, qua his omitting, to, make any bespeaking qua it being neither mitigable nor reversible nor curable, (ii) and, rather with PW-6/A, making clear echoing, qua, the disability entailed, upon, the minor being amenable to improvement, and, when no evidence stands adduced, that, since the preparation of Ex.PW6/A, there being no improvement, though necessarily enjoined to be adduced, (iii) hence, the computation of compensation, under, the head “pain and suffering”, comprised in a sum of Rs.20,000/-, and, further assessment of compensation, under, the head “future loss of amenities”, comprised in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, is, in consonance with the pronouncements, borne in Ex.PW6/A. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the award impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.