JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal') by judgment and award dated 06.10.2001 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,500/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation i.e. 24.04.1995. 2. Undisputed facts which have been found by the the Tribunal and are not in question are that the claimant was travelling in the car being registration No.GRQ-111, which was being driven by one Naresh Bhai and while travelling from Ahmedabad to Ajmer, a luxury bus bearing registration No.APO2-Y-1449 being driven by respondent No.1 - Narayan Gauda collided with the car, resulting in death of the driver Naresh Bhai and injuries to all the passengers travelling in the car. 3. In the application for compensation ('application') it was claimed that the appellant suffered multiple fractures and hospitalization at Ahmedabad for 25 days, he remained plastered for three months and was treated for six months at home, he was not able to do the same work, which he could do before the accident, he was working in the Photostat Machine Manufacturing Company and was getting Rs. 6,000/- as salary per month. He filed disability certificate Exhibit-79 showing 18% disability and several documents relating to treatments. 4. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence led by the claimant, came to the conclusion that medical bills and payment receipts of Rs. 28,120/- were produced by the claimant, no record was produced in support of the contention that the claimant remained admitted at Ahmedabad for 25 days. The disability certificate Exhibit-79 dated 31.10.1999 given by Dr. Apurva Shastri (AW-8), wherein, it was indicated that the claimant had suffered 18% disablement, was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards seven simple injuries and the mental stress suffered by the claimant, Rs. 30,000/- for fractures in femur, tibia and fibula, Rs. 28,500/- towards medicines, Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling to the hospital and nutritious diet and towards 18% disablement and its affect on his future income the appellant was awarded Rs. 40,000/- and for loss of income for the period of his confinement on account of fractures suffered, he was awarded Rs. 15,000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 5,000/-. In all a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling to the hospital and nutritious diet and towards 18% disablement and its affect on his future income the appellant was awarded Rs. 40,000/- and for loss of income for the period of his confinement on account of fractures suffered, he was awarded Rs. 15,000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 5,000/-. In all a sum of Rs. 1,38,500/- was awarded alongwith interest as indicated hereinbefore. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the serious injuries suffered by the appellant is highly inadequate and against the material available on record. It was submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects viz-a-viz the 18% permanent disablement suffered by him and has awarded highly inadequate compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of future prospects. It was further submitted that adequate evidence was available on record, however, the same has not been properly appreciated. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference and in fact the same is on the higher side and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 8. It is true that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident resulting in fractures of both legs at femur, tibia and fibula and other injuries on his chin. The claimant examined himself as AW-3 and produced documents Exhibit-79 to Exhibit-148 relating to his permanent disablement, treatment and payment receipts. The appellant claimed that he was working in a Photostat Machine Manufacturing Company and was getting Rs. 6,000/- as salary per month. 9. In view of the evidence, which were produced by the appellant on record, it is evident that despite producing as many as 67 documents relating to treatment and payments, the appellant failed to produce any record regarding his hospitalization for 25 days at Sadhana Hospital, Ahmedabad and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to award the compensation for the said hospitalization, if any. Regarding loss of future income, the appellant has failed to substantiate his income of Rs. 6,000/- from the Photostat Machine Manufacturing Company. Regarding loss of future income, the appellant has failed to substantiate his income of Rs. 6,000/- from the Photostat Machine Manufacturing Company. Besides that for grant of compensation on account of future loss of income, it is incumbent for the claimant to lead evidence as to the nature of work/duties being performed by him before suffering the injuries during accident and the work/duties, which he could/could not perform on account of such injuries/disablement and the consequential loss on account of the said injuries. It is not in all cases that where ever a permanent disablement takes place, the same would necessarily result in loss of future income to the extent of disability, which is 18% in the present case. On the other hand, the nature of duty may be such that even 20% disablement can result in 100% loss of future income. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 has observed as under:- "10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 AIR SCW 6085 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2010 SC 3741 " 11. However, in the present case, the appellant has failed to lead any evidence regarding nature of work being performed by him and the effect of permanent disablement on his future prospects and, therefore, award of a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/- by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be inadequate and the challenge made by the appellant in this regard also fails. No other point was pressed. 12. Consequently, there is no force in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******