BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 15th October, 2011, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aklera, District Jhalawar, decreed an amount of Rs. 92,200/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22nd March, 2010, at about 12:30 pm, the claimant was going on motor-cycle to Sarola. He was accompanied by one Shri Prem Narayan. It is alleged that when the claimant reached just in front of the well of Laabh Chand Jain, one truck bearing Registration No. RJ-20-GA-0079, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, suddenly emerged and hit his motor-cycle, as a result of which both rider as also the pillion rider of motor-cycle fell on the ground and sustained injuries on their person. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully per-used the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has focused his argument only on one ground that the Tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards the loss of future earnings on account of 15% permanent disability having been sustained by the injured appellant due to accident. Learned counsel further canvassed that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income and thereafter having applied the proper multiplier suggested by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677 (S.C.) = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), as also the degree of permanent disability, reckoned the loss of future earnings. In view thereof, the quantum of compensation towards the loss of future earnings needs to be enhanced and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the claimant utterly failed to prove 15% loss of future earnings by way of any evidence. The claimant, rather, produced no evidence to prove the said 15% loss in his future earnings capacity due to 15% permanent disability sustained in the accident. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., reported in 2011(1) TAC 785 (SC) = 2011(1) CCR 71 (SC), has held that all the injuries do not result in loss of earnings capacity. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., reported in 2011(1) TAC 785 (SC) = 2011(1) CCR 71 (SC), has held that all the injuries do not result in loss of earnings capacity. 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). Thus, the Tribunal is required to reckon the loss of future earning capacity with reference to the evidence emerging on record in entirety. The appellant-claimant has not made any effort so as to make out a case of loss of 15% future earning due to 15% permanent disability having sustained in the said accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to convince me to take a view contrary to that of the view taken by the learned Tribunal. It is rather found that the Tribunal has already taken a liberal and sympathetic view in awarding the global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards the loss of future earning capacity, whereas, the claimant does not deserve to be awarded a single penny, as there is no such evidence, produced by the claimant in this regard. However, the law being beneficial to the victims of accident, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal, but the same does not need to be enhanced from any stretch of imagination. Thus, the appeal being devoid 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.