JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, where through, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., upon, MACP No. 1-D/II/2011, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.6,87,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. 2. The learned counsel appearing or the appellant/insurer, does not contest, the validity of affirmative findings, rendered by the learned tribunal, upon, issue No.1, appertaining to the relevant accident, being, a, sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle, by one Ramesh Kumar, respondent No.3 herein. In sequel, to the afore mishap, injuries, were entailed, upon, the person of the claimant, and, concomitantly, the apposite claimant, stood, entailed hence with 75% disability of the apt portion of his body, disability whereof, stands, pronounced in disability certificate, borne in Ex.PW2/A. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has contended with vigour before this Court, that with Ex.Ry and Ex. Rz, making candid display(s), (a) that, vis-a-vis, the expenditure incurred by the complainant, towards, his purchasing, hence medicines, for, enabling, his recuperation, from, the injuries, entailed upon his person, in the relevant mishap, rather standing disbursed qua him; (b) thereupon, with mark A-1 to A-207, obliviously, comprising, only the photo copies, of, the bills, reflective, of, expenses incurred for purchasing the medicines, hence, when the afore marked bills, remained rather not proven, from, originals thereof, (c) thereupon, any, inter se difference, vis-a-vis, the apposite amount(s) reimbursed to the claimant, and, the amounts comprised, in, the afore marked bills, rather not being amenable, for being ordered to be compensated to the claimant. However, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the afore submission is extremely fragile, (a) given, the afore marked exhibits, hence, making open pronouncements, qua, rather expenditure, as, incurred towards purchase, of medicines, being reimbursed to him, (b) and, with the insurer failing to adduce into evidence, the original bills qua wherewith, the apposite expenses, as, incurred by the claimant, hence stood reimbursed, vis-a-vis, him, (c) whereas, upon adduction, of, the afore bills, obviously, submitted in original, to the department concerned, by the claimant, (d) would rather make a display qua the afore marked bills, being not amongst, the originals, as submitted by the claimant, vis-a-vis, the department concerned, (e) and, when thereupon, it was open to the insurer to contend that the afore marked bills, for, want of theirs being proven, from originals thereof, hence were neither admissible nor readable, for the relevant purpose, (f) consequently, for afore wants of the counsel, for the insurer, rather beget an inference that the original(s), of, the afore marked bills, stood submitted before the department concerned, (g) and, the department concerned, within the rules hence permitting the reimbursement, of, expenses, vis-a-vis, only some medicines, rather proceeded, to, in consonance therewith, thereupon permit apposite reimbursement, vis-a-vis, the claimant, (h) and hence, it proceeding not to, reimburse expenses, towards purchase, of, some medicines, in respect whereof rules, forbid apt reimbursements, to the claimant. Corollary thereof, being qua the learned tribunal, being, competent, to, even with respect to the expenses, incurred by the claimant, towards his purchasing medicines in respect whereof, the department concerned, did not mete, apt reimbursement to the claimant, hence order, for the claimant being compensated. More so, when no evidence stand placed on record, that, the afore medicines, stood, never prescribed by the doctor concerned, for, enabling the claimant to recuperate, from, the injuries suffered by him, in, the relevant accident. 4. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has also contended with vigour, (i) that the amount of two lacs assessed, as compensation, by the learned tribunal, vis-a-vis, the claimant, assessment whereof, being towards loss of future income, arising from, (ii) the claimant losing his chances to be promoted, to the post higher than the one, he was donning, at the stage, when the disability befall upon him, also hence, suffering from, a, gross infirmity. The afore submission has vehemence, and, vigour, (iii) given though, the, claimant making the afore pleading in the afore petition, yet his not making any deposition in tandem therewith, (iv) nor his adducing any evidence comprised, in, adduction into evidence, of, the relevant record, of the department concerned, (v) with firm echoings, borne therein qua subsequent, to the entailment, of, the apt injuries, and, concomitant therewith entailment, of, disability, upon, his person, the department concerned, hence convening any DPC, (vi) and, his not being considered for promotion, to the higher post, especially given the befallment, of, a disability upon him. Consequently, the computation of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs. two lacs, under, the head “loss of future income”, warrants, it being quashed and set aside. 5. Even though, the learned counsel for the insurer has also contended, that, the validity of assessment, of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head” Special Diet”, and, assessment, of, a further sum of Rs. 10,000/-, towards attendant charges, being likewise ridden with infirmity, (i) hence, he contends that the computation, of, afore amount(s) of compensation, vis-a-vis, the afore heads, being also amenable for theirs being quashed and set aside. However, the afore submission of the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, is not amenable, to acceptance, given the prolonged duration of hospitalization of the claimants, for hence his recuperating, from, the injuries beset upon his person, and, the prolonged duration, of, his hospitalization also necessarily hence enjoining his obviously, expending a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards special diet, and, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimant, is, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,87,000/- (Rs. four lacs and eighty seven thousand only), along with pending and future interest @ 9 % per annum, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.