JUDGMENT 1. - Present appeal has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "the said Act") seeking enhancement of compensation by the appellant-claimant, against the award dated 7.9.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MACT Case No.965 of 1990, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 48,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition towards the compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the accident alleged 2 to have been caused by respondent no.1 while driving the offending Truck No.RNB- 5878. 2. It has been submitted by learned Mr. Kailash Sharma for the appellant that considering the nature of injuries and disablement sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal has committed an error by awarding very meagre compensation and hence this is a fit case to enhance the compensation to a reasonable amount. However,learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Singhal appearing for respondent-insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal has considered the nature of injuries and the expenses incurred by the appellant for the medical treatment. According to him, there was no evidence adduced by the appellant to show that the disability as alleged had resulted into any financial loss to the appellant. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 13,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant, Rs. 15,000/- for the permanent disability, Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 3,000 for the loss of income for two months and Rs. 2,500/- for the miscellaneous expenses i.e. transportation and nutritious food. The Tribunal thus awarded Rs. 48,500/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the alleged accident. 4. It further transpires that the appellant- claimant had not adduced any evidence to show that the alleged disability had affected his earning capacity, resulting into any financial loss in future. At this juncture a beneficial reference of observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC) , is required to be made. At this juncture a beneficial reference of observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC) , is required to be made. It has been observed as under: "13.We may now summarise 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. 5. The appellant having failed to prove by leading evidence that alleged disability had resulted in loss of his earning capacity, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount towards future loss of income. Considering the nature of injuries and the evidence on record, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award made by the Tribunal. Appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******