Judgment VINOD K.SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 30.10.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), vide which claim petition moved by the claimant for grant of compensation, for the injuries suffered in the motor vehicular accident, stands allowed. The claimant along with Manoj and Karamvir was going on scooter No. DL-ISL/7860 from village Gaud towards Narnaul on 2.4.2007, when the offending vehicle came from the opposite direction, which was driven rashly, negligently and at a fast speed by respondent No.1, and hit the scooter, as a result of which the scooter riders fell down on the road, and received injuries. It was claimed, that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence of respondent No.1. 2. The claimant suffered permanent disability of 11% in the accident. 3. The application was contested by the Insurance Company by seeking permission under Sec.170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The plea on merit, as well as regarding violation of terms of the Insurance policy, were raised. 4. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding of fact, that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-66-1263, by respondent No.1, as a result of which Sanjay Singh sustained injuries. The compensation assessed was Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lac and forty thousand only ). The income of the injured was assessed at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month, being Constable in the Delhi Police. Compensation was awarded, by taking in view the 11% permanent disability. The break up of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal reads as under :- The claimant was also held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount. 5 Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contends, that the compensation awarded is on the higher side, as the learned Tribunal has failed to take note of the evidence on record, which showed that the claimant was hospitalized for only 23 days, whereas his loss of income was assessed for five months, which is not permissible, especially when no evidence in support. The claimant did no suffer loss of income, as he continued to be employee of the Delhi Police. The claimant did no suffer loss of income, as he continued to be employee of the Delhi Police. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends, that the amount of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) granted to the claimant towards 11% permanent disability is not justified, as it should not be more than Rs.33,000/-. 6. The medical bills were also paid on the higher side, without considering, as to whether the medical bills were reimbursed by the Government or not. 7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant even Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) granted towards pain and sufferings was on the higher side. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be noticed to be rejected. The compensation awarded cannot be said to be exorbitant, as a matter of fact, the learned Tribunal has failed to notice that 11% permanent disability of a police Constable results in loss of future prospects of promotion and future career is completely ruined. The compensation on account of disability itself should have been much more than the granted. 9. The other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant also deserve to be rejected, as it was for the Insurance Company to prove, that the loss was not suffered. No presumption could be drawn as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, to deny the claims. The very fact that career of claimant stands ruined, the compensation awarded can not be said to be on higher side. 10. No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. No merit. Dismissed.