BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 3rd November, 2011, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, decreed an amount of Rs. 16,000/- in favour of the claimant-appellant and against the respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that as per the permanent disability certificate (Ex.14), he sustained 18%-20% permanent disability on account of accident, but the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the loss of future earnings resulting from the permanent disability. Despite the appellant having sustained grievous injuries on his person and having undergone a long treatment at different places, the Tribunal arbitrarily awarded merely an amount of Rs. 16,000/-, as compensation, which is abysmally low in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced and the impugned award deserves to be modified. 4. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is revealed from the perusal of the award that the appellant, albeit, filed the permanent disability certificate with the Tribunal, but the said certificate was found to have been obtained by the appellant from Medical Board after seven years of accident. As per own statement of the appellant, he got the treatment at Buhana Hospital, Singhana Hospital as also at Jhunjhunu, but not even a single prescription issued by any of the Doctors, of these places, was produced before the Tribunal. The appellant did not file any document, so as to prove that he underwent the treatment under Doctor Ranveer as also in the Hospitals situated at Buhana and Jhunjhunu. The permanent disability certificate (Ex.14) is also found to have been obtained from a Doctor after five years of the accident, who did not at all treat the injured. It is also not proved that on account of the 18%-20% disability having developed, owing to the accident, there was a proportionate loss of future earnings also. 5. It has been categorically observed by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Others reported in 2011(1) TAC 785 (SC) = 2011(1) CCR 71 (SC), that all the injuries do not result into loss of future earnings. 5. It has been categorically observed by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Others reported in 2011(1) TAC 785 (SC) = 2011(1) CCR 71 (SC), that all the injuries do not result into loss of future earnings. There is not even a iota of evidence on record on the basis of which, it can be said that there was any loss of future earnings owing to the permanent disability, having sustained in the accident. The impugned award is perfectly just and apposite in the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned counsel for the appellant has utterly failed to convince me to take a contrary view to that of the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the appeal being bereft of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed in limine.