JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the insurer of the offending vehicle, Where uponwhom, stood hence saddled, the, indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, as, determined under the impugned award, rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, District Solan, H.P (for short ?Tribunal?), upon, MAC Petition No. 30FTC/2 of 2010, and, hence for begetting, its, reversal it has, constituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, has, not contested the validity of the findings returned, upon, (a) the issue appertaining to the deceased claimant, suffering disability(s) sparked by the rash, and, negligent driving, of, the offending vehicle hence by respondent No.1, and (b) nor he contests the validity of the findings returned, upon, the issue, appertaining to the driver, of, the offending vehicle not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, to, at the relevant time, hence drive it, (c) besides he does not contest the validity of the findings returned, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle rather not at the relevant time, possessing a valid Registration certificate, and, fitness certificate, besides, a valid route permit. However, the appellant herein has only wrangled, vis-a-vis, the quantum of compensation, assessed under the head appertaining, to loss of future income, (a) and, qua wherewith he contests, with vehemence, before this Court that an exorbitant sum of Rs.7,77,600/- stands assessed, (b) and, his afore submission is anvilled, upon, the learned Tribunal rather making, an, inapt conclusion, vis-a-vis, a cent-percent disablement, being encumbered, upon the claimant, despite, the claimant pleading qua in, the, relevant mishap, his being encumbered, with amputation of lower part, of his right leg, and, with the afore admission, also, being succored, by Ex. PW5/C, wherein it is reflected qua the left upper limb of the claimant, being already amputated in childhood, (c) thereupon, the reflections borne in PW-7/A, vis-a-vis, the claimant suffering amputation, of, right shoulder being neither relatable, nor it holding any nexus or connection, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap (d) and further thereunder, it, also displaces the further echoing made therein, qua hence, a, 100% disability being encumbered, upon the claimant, (e) and, thereupon he makes a vigorous contention, that, only the disability appertaining, to the amputation of his right knee, hence, being reckonable, for, determining qua (i) the capacity of the claimant to, in future, perform the relevant works, appertaining to his successfully prosecuting the discipline of mechanical engineering at ITI Solan, and, also in case the entailment, of, the afore disability, upon, the claimant, has stalled his completing, the afore course of Mechanical Engineering, in the ITI concerned, (ii) rather the evidence on record, not forthrightly displaying qua his being completely interdicted or prohibited, to perform the afore avocations/works, of, the Mechanical Engineering, and, hence he contends that apt determination, under, the head ?loss of future income? of compensation, and, borne in the afore sum, rather, being amenable for interference by this Court. 3. However, upon, this Court traversing, through, the echoings, borne in Ex, PW-7/A, appertaining to amputation, of right shoulder of the claimant, marshals the ensuing therefrom inference, qua, yet, the further disability pronounced therein, and, appertaining to amputation of the portion below right knee, (i) rather continuing to operate, as completely, and, absolutely precluding the claimant, to, complete, the, hitherto prosecuted discipline, of, Mechanical engineering, at the IIT concerned, (ii) and, also leaning this Court to make a conclusion, that, the afore disability working, towards rendering incapacitated, the claimant, to, even perform, in future, the, work of Mechanical Engineering (iii) and, hence, therefrom, the afore disability, as, encumbered upon the claimant, hence, in the relevant occurrence also obviously working towards carrying, the, completest interdicting apposite effects, and, rather hence a cent percent disability standing entailed, upon, the claimant. 4. 4. The vigor of the afore conclusion drawn, by this Court, is strived, to be unsettled by the learned counsel, for the appellant, by his drawing, the, attention of this Court, to the deposition of PW-2 (Virender Kumar) (i) who in his examination-in-chief has made voicings purportedly holding leanings vis-a-vis the injured, however, the afore contention, is, misfounded and misplaced, (ii) as a reading, of, the examination of PW-2, rather makes a clear reflection, qua, in consequence to the injuries entailed, upon, the claimant, his being baulked to complete the discipline, of, Mechanical Engineering, at the ITI concerned, and, he also therein makes a deposition qua rather upon the claimant, completing his training at the institution concerned, his assuredly getting employment, in, Government or private college, whereas, the disabling injuries fully precluding, all, the afore prospects. 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel, for the insurer has not halted his submission, and, rather has continued, to make a vociferous submission, before this Court, that, with PW-4 Vikas Saini, in his examination-in-chief rather making a deposition, vis-avis, the claimant, remaining his student since 2009 to 2011, (a) and, with the relevant disabling injuries being entailed, upon, the claimant hence in June, 2010, therethrough the learned counsel for the appellant, contends, that there, was no, apposite prohibition encumbered upon the claimant, in sequel to his gaining injuries, as stand pronounced, in the disability certificate, comprised in Ex. PW-7/A. Even through the afore inter-se contradiction, in, the testimonies of PW-2, and, of PW-4, the, afore submission, is, scuttled , as, (b) with PW-2 stepping in the witness box earlier, to, PW-4, and, with during the recording, of, the subsequent thereto testification, of PW-4, rather, the, latter remaining unconfronted therewith, (c) besides also when the Doctor concerned, has while, stepping into the witness box as PW-5, rather made an unequivocal echoing, in his cross-examination qua, the, gravity of disabling injuries, rather precluding the claimant, to, perform even his routine works, (d) thereupon, it is to be concluded that, dehors, only the disability, of, amputation of portion below right knee, being encumbered, upon, the claimant, in sequel to the relevant mishap rather the afore injuries also operating to completely forbid and preclude, the claimant to even perform, any routine jobs, (e) and, the further sequel thereof is that the reliance placed by the learned counsel, upon, a verdict recorded in 2011, ACJ, 444, titled as Kailash v. Jayoti Ram, wherein in paragraph 13, which stands extracted hereinafter, it stands echoed, qua dehors, the disability entailed, upon, the claimant therein, rather not precluding him, to, perform jobs other than cleaner, hence, the quantum of compensation assessed being hence reduced, (f) rather also not holding any sway or clout, vis-a-vis, the afore evidence, pronounced in the cross-examination of PW-5, who, has therein vehemently voiced qua the completest, and, fullest prohibition being entailed, upon, the claimant, to, in sequel to the disabling injuries, rather, hence, perform even his routine jobs, (g) whereupon, the quantum, of, compensation assessed, under, the head appertaining to loss of future income, is, meritworthy. ?In the instant case, the appellant was aged 17/18 years at the time of accident. He was a cleaner in the truck. His left leg from the knee was amputated, as, stated by Dr. Manoj Kumar Thakur, Assistant Professor of Department of Orthopedic and Surgery, thereby suffered 85% permanent disability of the lower limb qua his profession. Thus, because of this disability, he cannot perform the job of cleaner, but certainly it is not as it he has become incapacity to earn any amount by doing some other job. He is still capable to manage the agricultural operations, run the shop where only sitting is required, but this cannot be lost sight that his earing capacity and further prospects has been impaired substantially. 6. He is still capable to manage the agricultural operations, run the shop where only sitting is required, but this cannot be lost sight that his earing capacity and further prospects has been impaired substantially. 6. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back.