JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award dated 06-08-2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) 282 of 1999 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- to the claimant. The claimant suffered injury in an accident which took place on 06-02-1997. The claim petition was filed by him in the year 1999. In the claim petition, it was claimed that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. It was also alleged that due to the injuries he has become totally disabled and is unable to earn. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant has not been able to prove that he has been totally disabled, but from the disability certificate it is proved that he has suffered 20% disability. The claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- out of which Rs. 1,80,000/- was granted for future loss of income and Rs. 12,000/- for medical expenses. It has been urged that the amount under both the heads is very low. 2. At the outset, I may notice that the accident took place in the year 1997. The claimant did not produce any proof of his income. He stated that he was a Home Guard and also earning from agricultural pursuits. In the year 1997, the claimant could not have been earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimant led no evidence to show that he has been discharged from the Home Guards or that he was unable to perform his duties as Home Guard. No official from the office of Home Guards was examined and other than the bald statement of the claimant, there is no other evidence. It is for the claimant to lead some evidence to show how he or she has been affected by the injuries received in the accident. 3. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ], the Apex Court clearly held that where the claimant claims that the injuries are serious and that the effect of the injuries is that the loss of earning is more than his disability, then he must examine a doctor. In this case, no doctor has been examined and other than the statement of the claimant, there is no other material on record. In this case, no doctor has been examined and other than the statement of the claimant, there is no other material on record. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the claimant had not led any evidence to prove that what was the extent of the loss of income. 4. As already held by me above, the income of the claimant has been taken at Rs. 5,000/- which is much on the higher side. Therefore, even if the award is slightly lower, as far as pain, suffering and loss of amenities is concerned that is more than offset by the fact that the income has been taken on much higher side. 5. Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Send down the lower court records forthwith.