JUDGMENT : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. 1. Present appeal is preferred by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts of the present case in a nutshell are as follows: a) On 20.09.2008, petitioner while proceeding from Kavali Town to Vengalarao Nagar on TVS Star City Motor Cycle, an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 26G 8172 came in opposite direction and dashed into his motorcycle, resulting in sustaining fracture injuries on right leg. He shifted to Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore and got admitted as inpatient from 20.09.2008 to 12.10.2008 and later, shifted to Vijaya Health Center, Chennai, for better treatment. b) The incident was reported to police, who registered crime No.73/2008 for offences under Sections 338 and 337 of IPC. Appellant had undergone multiple surgeries on his right leg. He later filed M.V.O.P. No.977 of 2009 before IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. c) On his behalf, he got examined as P.W.1 and also examined Doctors who treated him as P.Ws.2 to 4 besides marking Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of Insurance company, none were examined, however, insurance policy came to be marked as Ex.B1. d) The aforesaid claim came to be resisted by respondent insurance company. The driver of auto rickshaw remained ex parte. The Insurance Company denied the manner in which the accident occurred and that it was due to the negligence of auto rickshaw, besides disputing income of the claimant. e) After considering the material available on record, the Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 26X 5714 by its driver and whether it resulted injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 26X 5714 was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? 4. To what relief? 2. Whether the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 26X 5714 was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? 4. To what relief? f) The Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident has occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of auto rickshaw and insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, Tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,26,368/- towards medical expenses, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earnings, thus in total awarded Rs.7,66,368/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till date of deposit as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. g) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order to the extent of claim that is not considered and awarded, present appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for appellant/claimant and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned standing counsel, appearing for 2 nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly raised two issues, one with respect to loss of earnings and the other compensation under the head of disability. Insofar as loss of earnings is concerned, he contended that the appellant/claimant had claimed loss of earnings for six months having regard to the salary being drawn as Rs.20,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal had only considered salary as Rs.10,000/-, which is not in accordance with Ex.A10 salary certificate. He further contended that when Ex.A10 clearly demonstrated that claimant had been paid Rs.20,000/- per month, having regard to his qualification of M.Sc. in Agriculture, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the same and notionally fixed the salary as Rs.10,000/- per month, which is clearly perverse. Insofar as the second aspect is concerned, he contended that the Tribunal has completely denied compensation on the head of disability, without appreciating the fact that claimant had suffered amputation of right leg lower ankle and foot part, which P.Ws.2 to 4 have clearly spoke of. 5. Insofar as the second aspect is concerned, he contended that the Tribunal has completely denied compensation on the head of disability, without appreciating the fact that claimant had suffered amputation of right leg lower ankle and foot part, which P.Ws.2 to 4 have clearly spoke of. 5. Per contra, opposing aforesaid submissions, learned standing counsel for 2 nd respondent, while supporting the order under challenge, contended that as claimant has not examined any person in support of Ex.A10 salary certificate, the Tribunal has rightly considered notional income as Rs.10,000/-, which cannot be found fault with and secondly, with respect to compensation on account of disability neither petitioner has placed any medical evidence on record indicating the percentage of disability nor the doctors who were examined as P.Ws.2 to 4 have spoken about percentage of disability, in absence of the same, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said claim, therefore, pleaded to dismiss the appeal. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions made by both sides. 7. As counsel for claimant argued only aforesaid two aspects, this Court is confining the appeal to the same. In the claim made by appellant, the salary has been shown as Rs.20,000/- per month based on Ex.A10. Ex.A10 is a salary certificate issued by M/s.Bio-Farms, R&D Centre, situated at Idukki District, Kerala State, which is a private entity. As per the said certificate, it is shown that claimant worked as Senior Technical Officer (Organic Agriculture) from 07.12.2007 to 25.09.2008. Claimant also filed Ex.A5, which is copy of provisional certificate of Masters in Science issued by Gujarat Agricultural University. The Tribunal while appreciating aforesaid evidence has observed that claimant except for filing the same, did not choose to examine anyone in support thereof. In the absence of any other evidence and having regard to his qualification, the Tribunal has fixed salary as Rs.10,000/- per month. The burden of proof as to how much salary is being earned by claimant for the purpose of claiming compensation lies on him, and mere exhibiting of Ex.A10 will not suffice and the salary mentioned therein cannot be treated as conclusive. This Court finds that approach of Tribunal in not accepting the salary as claimed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and later fixing Rs.10,000/- would not be perverse. Even going by Ex.A10, the tenure of service of claimant is hardly for ten months i.e., from 07.12.2007 to 25.09.2008. This Court finds that approach of Tribunal in not accepting the salary as claimed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and later fixing Rs.10,000/- would not be perverse. Even going by Ex.A10, the tenure of service of claimant is hardly for ten months i.e., from 07.12.2007 to 25.09.2008. No other evidence is produced as to what claimant was doing prior to and how much he was drawing. In view of the same, the Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion in awarding Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earning for a period of six months, considering monthly income on notional basis as Rs.10,000/-. 8. Coming to the other aspect of compensation under head of disability, though learned counsel for appellant has tried to persuade this Court that on account of amputation of right leg lower part, the claimant is unable to attend to his regular works and thereby, deprived of livelihood, he would not point out to any specific evidence that has been let in to show as to how much exactly his percentage of disability either certified by medical board or the doctors, who treated, in particular P.Ws.2 to 4. Even the Tribunal while dealing with the said issue has categorically observed that there is no evidence forthcoming from the claimant to indicate the disability, quay, the quantum of compensation being claimed. The said conclusion of Tribunal needs no interference. Even the doctors who have been examined have only spoke of amputation of 3 toes and not the entire lower part of the right leg, therefore, in the absence of any medical evidence, neither the Tribunal nor this Court are capable of coming to any definitive finding with respect to the percentage of disability and the onus of proof that claimant had suffered with certain percentage of disability clearly rests on him, which on facts of the case has not been established. 9. Since the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence adduced by claimant and the documents available on record in coming to aforesaid conclusions, as no other view is possible, this Court is not inclined to disturb the same. 10. Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.