RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.99,000/- that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh, Ajmer vide award dated 22/6/1998 in regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road accident, which took place on 28/2/1993 involving the vehicle insured with the respondent No.7-The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Tribunal erred in law while accepting the income of the appellant-practicing lawyer at Rs.20,000/- only, whereas he was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month from the profession of advocacy. Learned Tribunal further erred in law while awarding only a sum of Rs.30,000/- for ‘loss of income’ for two months, whereas at least a sum of Rs.80,000/- ought to have been awarded for loss of income for two months. Learned Tribunal further erred in law while awarding only a sum of Rs.6644.92 towards the actual medical expenses, whereas appellant incurred Rs.50,000/- on his treatment. Learned Tribunal also not awarded anything under the head of ‘loss of earning capacity’. Learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount of compensation of Rs.12,000/- for ‘pain & suffering’, whereas atleast a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- should have been awarded under this head. Learned Tribunal erred in law while awarding only a sum of Rs.50,000/- for ‘disfigurement of face’, whereas learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher sum under this head. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have argued that a just and reasonable amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal in the light of the evidence available on record, which cannot be said to be towards the lower side. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that appellant in Ground (B) of the memo of appeal has asserted on the one hand in beginning lines that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from the profession of advocacy and in further lines of the same para he asserted his income to be between Rs.52,000/- to Rs.55,000/-. In claim application, appellant claimed a sum of Rs.80,000/- per month earning from the profession of advocacy, but he did not submit the income-tax returns of the assessment year 1992-93. He submitted photocopies of income-tax returns before the Tribunal only for the assessment-year 1993-94 and for the year 1992-93 in which year the accident took place. In claim application, appellant claimed a sum of Rs.80,000/- per month earning from the profession of advocacy, but he did not submit the income-tax returns of the assessment year 1992-93. He submitted photocopies of income-tax returns before the Tribunal only for the assessment-year 1993-94 and for the year 1992-93 in which year the accident took place. According to the income-tax returns of 1993-94, the appellant was earning Rs.2,06,983 p.a. in 1992-93 and on the basis of which, the Tribunal assessed his income Rs.20,000/- per month, which the appellant was supposed to be earning in 1992-93, which in the light of the evidence on record, cannot be towards the lower side or the finding in this regard suffers apparent from the face of record. Appellant submitted before the appellant Discharge Certificate Exb.9, according to which, appellant remained hospitalized in the hospital for seven days i.e. w.e.f. 28/2/1993 to 6/3/1993. He was discharged from hospital on 6/3/1993. In the meanwhile, he was subjected to operation on 4/3/1993. He was advised to take rest for six weeks. Therefore, awarding of compensation for ‘loss of income for 1½ months’ amounting to Rs.30,000/- in the year 1998 cannot be said to be towards the lower side. Though, the appellant claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the ‘actual medical expenses’ but he failed to submit the medical bills against the said sum and he submitted medical bills only for a sum of Rs.6644.92 on record, which the Tribunal awarded to him. Therefore, expecting from the Tribunal to award higher sum beyond the documentary evidence on record, is not justified. Awarding of Rs.12,000/- according to Exb.10 towards ‘pain & suffering’ also cannot be held to be unjustified. Medical officer was not produced to prove Exb.8 permanent disability certificate so as to accept ‘loss of physical capacity & lowering down of vision capacity’ in order to accept ‘loss of income’; despite this, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- for ‘mental agony due to disfigurement’. Thus, a sum of Rs.98,644.92 was awarded, which was rounded off to Rs.99,000/-. Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation on each and every head and that too in the light of the evidence on record. 5. I do not find any error in the award so as to call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.