- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Petition NO. 1025/95 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35000/- towards the injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of the accident in question as per the award dated 4.6.02.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the appellant-claimant and has awarded meager compensation. According to him the appellant had sustained the fracture of femur bone and he was driver by profession and after the accident he was unable to drive the vehicle. Relying upon the unreported judgment of this court in case of Amar Singh Vs. Samsher Khan & Ors. In SBCMA No. 12/03 decided on 27.3.06, the learned counsel submitted that the percentage of disability of body as a whole should have been taken into consideration while awarding future loss of income. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sri Kumaresh Vs. The Divl. Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2011 STPL (Web) 462 SC in support of his submission. In the present case, the appellant had sustained injuries as a result of the accident which was caused on 24.4.95. As per the injury certificate, the appellant had abrasions and swelling on the right leg and fracture of femur bone as per the X-Ray report. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- for the pain and suffering for the said injuries and awarded Rs. 2000/- towards medical expenses. So far as the future loss of income is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded lumpsum amount of Rs. 15,000/- by holding that the appellant had failed to prove that he was unable to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal has also observed that in the certificate of disability issued by the doctor it was not mentioned that he had any inconvenience in sitting or walking etc. It also appears that the appellant had not examined the concerned doctor who had issued the certificate of his disability, and had also not produced any other evidence to show that he would suffer any loss in future because of the injuries sustained by him. In absence of such evidence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of income. It is needless to say that the claimant has to produce cogent evidence as regards the income for the purpose of ascertaining the future loss of income, which according to him he would suffer on account of the injuries in question. The said burden having not been discharged by the appellant, there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal. In the case of Sri Kumaresh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded the compensation as the leg of the claimant was amputated, which is not the case here and therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case. The other unreported judgment of this court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is also decided on the facts of the case and is not helpful to the appellant. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;