Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Claimant-appellant has filed this appeal dissatisfied with award dated 27.06.2011 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MAC Case No.189/2011 (643/10), whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,59,420/- for permanent disability suffered by appellant at 15%, whereas in fact the appellant suffered 18.45% permanent disability. 2. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that difference of awardable compensation for remaining 3.45% permanent disability under the head of loss of income would make a lot of difference. According to the structure formula, learned counsel for appellant argued that as per the income of the appellant i.e. Rs.12,800/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 13, the total sum comes to Rs.19,96,800 and 15% thereof, that has been awarded, comes to only Rs.2,99,520/-, whereas, if the permanent disability is taken as 18.45%, the awardable amount would come to Rs.3,68,409.60 and there is no reason why 15% should be accepted as permanent disability when the evidence proves the accident and permanent disability to be 18.45%. It was argued that the appellant is admittedly a government servant and the difference of ultimately awardable compensation is more than Rs.68,000/-, which is a handsome amount for middle class person like petitioner. It is therefore prayed that the awarded amount of compensation may be enhanced. 3. On hearing learned counsel for appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that learned Tribunal has mentioned that appellant, who is in government service, has not actually suffered any loss of income, yet learned Tribunal, relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Others – 2011 A.C.J. (1) 1 (SC), accepted permanent disability of 15% suffered by appellant and taking his age to be 49 years applied the multiplier of 13. In the facts of present case, in my opinion, learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any material irregularity in taking that view. Even if the appeal is entertained, that would make marginal difference which, however, I do not consider appropriate to be interfered with, as total award of Rs.3,59,420/- has been passed in favour of the appellant. The appellant has been awarded Rs.33000/- for actual medical expenses, Rs.200/- for transportation, Rs.2000/- for mental agony, pain, suffering etc., Rs.2700/- for other expenses and Rs.21000/- for loss on account of taking 51 days leaves during treatment. I do not find any infirmity in the award. The appellant has been awarded Rs.33000/- for actual medical expenses, Rs.200/- for transportation, Rs.2000/- for mental agony, pain, suffering etc., Rs.2700/- for other expenses and Rs.21000/- for loss on account of taking 51 days leaves during treatment. I do not find any infirmity in the award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.