Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Vikash Vaishnav aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 24.8.2011, which has awarded a sum of Rs.73,664/- as compensation. The claimant sustained permanent disability of 6% in the road accident involving the vehicle insured with the respondent insurance company. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant was a skilled labour. The certificate has been given by M/s. Soni Electricals Repairs that he was getting a sum of Rs.3,000 per month as salary and Rs.50/- per day separately as allowance, thus his income should have been accepted at Rs.4500 per month. The claimant in his claim petition has stated that his income was Rs.8000 per month. The Tribunal has erred in law in accepting his income at Rs.3,000 per month only. 3. On being asked, learned counsel submitted that the disability of 6% was assessed on account of injury to his intestine and fracture of one of the legs. The multiplier of 16 has been applied because age of the dependent was 18 years at the time of accident. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned order, I find that the extent of disability in the facts that it was an injury on the intestine and legs, which will get healed up in future and which would in no manner affect the earning capacity of the claimant in future and, therefore, in view of the judgment of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.-2011 (1) TAC 785 (SC) = 2011(1) CCR 71 (SC), the Tribunal was justified in assessing the disability in respect of whole of the body and future earning capacity of the injured. Moreover, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.34,560 for permanent disability of 6%, Rs.3,000 for three simple injuries, Rs.5,000 for one grievous injury, Rs.3,000 for mental agony and nutritious diet, Rs.22,804 for medical expenses, Rs.3,300 for hospitalisation of 17 days and Rs.2,000 for transportation. Even though there is possibility of marginal increase in the amount of compensation, but appeal on that basis cannot be entertained because in totality, the award is just and proper. 5. The appeal is therefore dismissed. However, dismissal of this appeal would not affect the merits of another appeal in the claim case, which was decided by common award which is impugned herein.