JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 20th June, 2001, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (here-in-after to be referred as the 'Tribunal'), decreed an amount of Rs. 93,000/- in favour of the appellant-claimant and against the respondents. Dissatisfied with this amount, the appellant has implored to enhance the amount of compensation. 2. For the purpose of decision of this appeal, the facts of the case, in brief, are that on 5th March, 1999, the appellant along with other labourer went on a Truck bearing Registration No. RNG 1381 from PHED Office Hatwara, Jaipur to Chomu to unload the iron pipes. After unloading the iron pipes, when they were coming back from Chomu to Jaipur, the driver of the truck was driving the same at a very fast speed. The passengers asked him not to drive so fast, but he did not pay attention and on the contrary having driven the truck negligently at a fast speed, he dashed the truck against a tree, as a result of which, the persons sitting inside the truck sustained injuries on their persons. The appellant is said out have sustained injuries on his vertebra. He was operated and he is said to have sustained 15.33% permanent disability. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that despite there being 15.33% permanent disability and despite this fact that he sustained a grievous injury on vertebra and remained under treatment for a long period of six months, yet, the Tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs. 70,000/- towards the injuries, suffering, pain trauma and loss of future earnings, arbitrarily without applying any standard formula, as suggested by the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases from time to time. If the loss of future income at the rate of 15.33% is taken into consideration, then the appellant becomes entitle to get Rs. 93,890/- towards the loss of future earnings only on account of 15.33% permanent disability. Hence, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced. 4. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper and submitted that it did not warrant any intervention. 5. 93,890/- towards the loss of future earnings only on account of 15.33% permanent disability. Hence, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced. 4. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper and submitted that it did not warrant any intervention. 5. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that albeit, concerned Doctor has given the certificate that the appellant sustained 15.33% permanent disability because of the injuries having sustained during the accident, yet, the appellant has utterly failed to prove that on account of there being 15.33% permanent disability, his monthly income also came down by 15.33% proportionately. There is not even a iota of evidence with regard to the loss of future earnings. Merely, on the basis of 15.33% permanent disability, it cannot be said that the income of the injured also came down by same percentage proportionately. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Ors., reported in 2011(1) TAC 785 (SC) , has categorically held that all the injuries do not result into the loss of future earnings. In the instant case, the injured sustained grievous injury on vertebra and he sustained 15.33% permanent disability, hence, the Tribunal awarded the global compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- towards the head of suffering, pain, trauma and loss of future earnings etc. This amount cannot be said to be on the lower side from any stretch of imagination. The Tribunal is found to have critically analyzed the entire evidence in detail and further found to have rightly reckoned Rs. 93,000/- to be the amount of compensation for the injuries, the appellant sustained in the said accident. 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, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******