JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The injured claimant has challenged the judgment passed in MACP No. 714/95 praying for enhancement of the compensation amount. The group of 13 matters were decided by a common judgment and award dated 26.6.2001 passed by MACT (Main), Rajkot. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Apurva Jani with learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the appellant submitted that the claimant had sustained physical injury and was admitted in Jamnagar Hospital from 26.1.1995 to 13.2.1995 as an indoor patient. Dr. Nirbhay Shah had given the certificate of permanent disability and according to the Doctor’s opinion, the claimant sustained serious disability which would cause difficulty in doing work with right hand. She later on faced difficulty lifting things. Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that to show her income, she has produced 19 documents which include income tax returns and now her earnings have reduced and has to close down her business. 3. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has considered the income tax returns and has also assessed the disability certificate and accordingly, upon considering the fracture of the wrist, 5% disability for the body as a whole has been considered. Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that thus, such disability would not in fact affect the functional earnings and even the schedule in the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 does not lay down the effect of earning capacity on the basis of the fracture of the wrist since after treatment, such injuries could be recovered. Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the income of Rs. 1,500/- per month has been considered. 4. Accordingly, on 5% disability, the compensation amount has been granted and the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering has also been assessed and reasonable amount under other heads are granted. The learned Tribunal has not observed that the injury would have led to closure of the work. The returns which have been placed on record for the subsequent years from 1995-96 to 1997-98 shows rise in income and the income assessed is reasonable and appropriate and accordingly, considering 5% disability applying multiplier of 16, the future loss of income has been granted and under other heads too, this Court considers that the amount is just and proper and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the observations of the Tribunal and hence, the appeal stands dismissed. However, it is directed that the insurance company deposits the amount in accordance to the award and the total amount be paid to the claimant on verification of the identity by RTGS/NEFT/account payee cheque.