JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.05.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the injuries suffered by claimant Kanhiya Lal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e. 06.04.1996. 2. The injured was travelling in a Jeep which collided with another Jeep resulting in the claimant suffering fractures in the right-hand and left-arm. The application for compensation was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant. It was claimed that the claimant has suffered 20% disablement. The Insurance Company filed reply to the application and opposed the same. 3. After evidence was led by the parties and submissions were made, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the vehicle owned by the respondent. 4. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,000/- towards diet, Rs. 1,000/- towards attendant, Rs. 2,000/- towards conveyance, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of income and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and physical pain. 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not awarded any sum for the 20% disablement suffered by the claimant and the same should be reflected based on the income claimed by the appellant and by applying a suitable multiplier. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the claimant has failed to indicate as to how the said 20% disablement has affected his earning capacity and, consequently, the award impugned does not call for any interference. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. 8. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the claimant is involved in business, however, neither the nature of business nor the fact as to how the 20% disablement has affected his earning capacity, has been indicated in the application. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 , has held that compensation for loss of income has to be based on actual loss resulting from the disablement. In the present case, the claimant has failed to indicate any such actual loss. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 , has held that compensation for loss of income has to be based on actual loss resulting from the disablement. In the present case, the claimant has failed to indicate any such actual loss. Besides the above, the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and physical pain; further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- taking into consideration the 20% disablement, which in the opinion of this Court, suffice as far as the disablement of the appellant-claimant is concerned.Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******