JUDGMENT : The Appeal by the new India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant-Insurance Company) and Cross-Objections by the Claimant-Devinder Singh are directed against the award dated 3March, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 2. The appeal as well as the Cross-objections arise out of the same award and, therefore, are being disposed by this common judgment. 3. The Appellant-Company in its appeal has only disputed the quantum of compensation, whereas, in the Cross-objections, the claimant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal. 4. In light of the pleadings of the parties, the only question to be determined is as to whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair or it needs to be enhanced or decreased. 5. As stated above, the Appellant-Insurance Company claims that the amount awarded is exorbitant and, therefore, does not represent just and fair compensation while as the claimant in his Cross-objections has urged that the amount of compensation awarded is on lower side and, in any case, is not commensurate to the loss of income suffered by him in the accident. Since there is no dispute with regard to other issues, as such, the evidence brought on record by the parties on issue No. 2 before the Tribunal is being considered and re-appreciated. 6. The claimant had claimed that he was earning Rs.30,000/-per month by doing the business of spare parts of Motor Vehicles. He has also stated that due to the motor accident in question he suffered head injury for which he was initially treated in Government Medical College, Jammu but subsequently shifted to Medanta Institute of Neuro Sciences, Gurgaon for specialized treatment. It is specifically pleaded and proved by the claimant that in view of the emergency and his critical medical condition, he was air-lifted to Delhi and admitted in Medanta Hospital, Gurgoan. The claimant also claims that he spent more that Rs. 11.00 lakhs on his treatment. He has placed on record the supporting documents including the medical bills to substantiate his claim. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record found that the income of the injured was Rs. 27,000/-per month and that the claimant had suffered permanent disability of 6%. 11.00 lakhs on his treatment. He has placed on record the supporting documents including the medical bills to substantiate his claim. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record found that the income of the injured was Rs. 27,000/-per month and that the claimant had suffered permanent disability of 6%. It was also found that the nature of disability suffered by the claimant was not such as would impair his earning capacity in any way. The claimant would still run his shop of spare parts without any substantial loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal, therefore, took the loss of earning capacity suffered by the claimant as 6% of his income and, accordingly, worked out the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/-. He was also held entitled to compensation on account of pain and sufferings to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal, however, awarded the sum of Rs. 5,57,000/-as medical expenses and Rs. 4,24,000/-as conveyance charges. In all, a sum of Rs. 11,86,000/-was awarded in favour of the claimant. 7. The Appellant-Insurance Company feeling aggrieved of the award has come up in this appeal. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company urges that the claimant has only suffered disability of 6%, that too due to head injury and, therefore, his earning capacity has not been affected at all. He submits that the claimant was running a shop of spare parts which he would continue to run unaffected by the disability suffered on account of the accident. He also disputes the amount of Rs. 4,24,000/-paid on account of conveyance charges on the ground that these were paid by the Tribunal on the basis of inflated bills submitted by the claimant. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the loss of earning capacity. It is submitted that the disability was due to the head injury and, therefore, had substantially affected the earning capacity of the claimant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the award. 11. Admittedly, the claimant suffered disability of 6% in the accident in question. As correctly appreciated by the Tribunal, disability suffered by the claimant was not of such nature as would impair his earning capacity, given the nature of avocation he was associated with. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the award. 11. Admittedly, the claimant suffered disability of 6% in the accident in question. As correctly appreciated by the Tribunal, disability suffered by the claimant was not of such nature as would impair his earning capacity, given the nature of avocation he was associated with. The Tribunal, thus, rightly took the loss of earning capacity also as 6% of the income. I do not find any illegality or infirmity with the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant-company that the medical and conveyance charges bills submitted by the claimant were inflated and the same could not have been completely acceded to by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the absence of any evidence led by the appellant-company to the contrary. The claimant has amply proved that on account of head injury which he suffered, he was initially admitted in Government Medical College, Jammu but in view of his critical medical condition, he was air-lifted and admitted in Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon. He was operated upon by the doctors at Medanta Hospital for which the aforesaid Hospital issued the bills to the tune of Rs. 5,56,472/-(rounded off to Rs. 5,57,000/-). Besides the medical expenses, the claimant had to pay a sum of Rs. 4,23,516/-(rounded off to Rs. 4,24,000/-as conveyance charges/air fare). Both the claims, i.e., claim of medical expenses and conveyance charges is supported by the cash memo/bills. In the absence of the contrary evidence brought on record by the Appellant-Company, the Tribunal had no material to reject the same or slash the amount claimed. In the same manner, this Court is also not in a position to accede to the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company. The claimant deserves to be reimbursed all the expenses which he has incurred on account of medical treatment and conveyance charges. 12. There is thus no illegality or infirmity in this finding of fact also returned by the Tribunal. The award passed by the Tribunal is well considered and in consonance with the evidence that is on record. 13. The appeal of the Insurance Company is, therefore, found to be without any merit and dismissed. The Cross-objections filed by the Claimant too are without any substance and, therefore, dismissed. The award passed by the Tribunal is well considered and in consonance with the evidence that is on record. 13. The appeal of the Insurance Company is, therefore, found to be without any merit and dismissed. The Cross-objections filed by the Claimant too are without any substance and, therefore, dismissed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is thus held to be just and fair compensation. Awarded amount, if any, deposited in this Court shall be released in favour of the claimant as per award.