JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment/award dated 15.4.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur & Judge, MACT, Jaipur in MAC Case No. 71/2012 (1227/2010) for enhancement of compensation. 2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant suffered serious injuries in the motor accident which occurred on 28.1.2010 when he was going on Activa Scooter No. RJ-14-48M-5216 at 7.30 AM while he was crossing Bhawani Niketan School, near Chomu Circle Bus No. RJ-14-PA-8606 came from opposite direction hit the appellant. The claimant suffered grievous injuries, he was immediately shifted to hospital. He preferred a claim petition but only a meager amount has been awarded, hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the present appellant is that he was non earning member, hence his loss for income should be assessed on notional basis. Meager amount has been awarded for pain and suffering. No amount has been assessed for transport charges and attendant, loss of future income should also be assessed.Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that admittedly appellant was a student not having any income, hence the court below has rightly not awarded any amount for loss of income and no interference is needed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was a student of XIIth Class having no earning, hence the court below has rightly not assessed the loss of income. The contention of the appellant is that in future he would have income and due to his disability his earning capacity would hamper, hence future loss of income should be assessed but the above contention is not acceptable in view of the law laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., ACJ 2011 (Vol. I) 1 that the appellant must show the functional disability which hampers his working capacity in present. It is admitted case of the claimant that at the time of passing of award he was not working therefore, not earning anything, hence the court below was justified in not awarding anything for the loss of income. 6. I) 1 that the appellant must show the functional disability which hampers his working capacity in present. It is admitted case of the claimant that at the time of passing of award he was not working therefore, not earning anything, hence the court below was justified in not awarding anything for the loss of income. 6. The other contention of the appellant is that for employing an attendant, for transport charges no amount has been awarded before the Tribunal, no such evidence has been produced by the appellant that any attendant has been employed by the appellant or he has incurred any expenditure for transport, hence the court below was justified in not awarding the same. For pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded and for injuries also, amount has been awarded, hence the court below has rightly assessed the just and fair compensation and no interference is needed.The appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******