JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed against, the impugned award, of, 6.10.2017, as, rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II) Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P ( for shot "MACT"), upon, MAC Petition No. 46- N/2 of 2012, where through, hence compensation amount borne, in a sum of Rs.1,75,225/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and, commencing from the date of filing of the afore claim petition, till realization thereof, was assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant/petitioner therein/respondent herein (for shot "disabled claimant"), (a) and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, rather, for want of a valid insurance cover, becoming executed, by, the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle/respondent No.1 therein/appellant herein (for short "appellant") hence, with the insurer concerned, stood saddled, upon, the aggrieved registered owner-cum-driver, of, the offending vehicle. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, does not, contest the validity of findings, as, recorded by the learned MACT, upon, issue No.1, and, appertaining to the injuries suffered by the disabled claimant, being a sequel of rash and negligent driving, of, the offending vehicle, by, the appellant herein. 3. However, the learned counsel for the appellant challenges the quantification of compensation, made, under the impugned award, and, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant. 4. A perusal of the impugned award discloses, vis-a-vis, hence a 10% disability standing entailed, upon, the disabled claimant, and, disability whereof, is, unraveled in the apposite disability certificate, as, embodied in Ex. PW-1/A. On anvil, of, the testification, of, the mother of the disabled claimant, as, embodied in her affidavit, borne in Ex. PW-3/A, affidavit whereof, stood tendered, during, the course of her examination-in-chief, and, also upon anvil, of, hers' during the course of her examination-in-chief, hence tendering into evidence, bills Ex. P-2 to P-57, thereupon, compensation amount qua apt therewith grounds/heads, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant. 5. Nowat conspicuously, with the afore bills, becoming not challenged to be either fictitious or fake, thereupon, the learned MACT concerned proceeded, to, under the head appertaining, to, "Medical and incidental expenses, as, incurred during the period of hospitalization, and, also vis-a-vis incidental thereto transportation charges", hence assess compensation, in, a sum of Rs.1,75,225/-. The afore assessment, obviously, was made towards medical charges, for, enabling the disabled claimant, to, recuperate from the disabling injuries, and, was also made towards transportation charges. The afore assessment, obviously, was made towards medical charges, for, enabling the disabled claimant, to, recuperate from the disabling injuries, and, was also made towards transportation charges. As afore-stated when, the, afore bills remained unchallenged, and, also when the requisite transportation charges, are, required to be borne by the parents, of, the minor child, to, enable them to travel up to the hospital concerned, for, hence their child thereat, hence receiving recuperating treatment, thereupon, the afore amount, of, compensation, as, assessed by the learned MACT, is, neither excessive nor exorbitant, and, also is not amenable, for, any interference. 6. Further more compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- stood assessed, under, the head "pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts etc, and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability" and, even the afore computation is neither gross nor is interfere-able, given, the evident apt sequelling encumbrances of pain, suffering, inconvenience, and, loss of amenities in life, becoming entailed, upon, the disabled claimant, whereupon rather the afore computation, is, rendered both just and reasonable. 7. In addition, computation, of, compensation borne in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, and, under the head "discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization" is also reasonable, as, the parents of the disabled child, given the disabling injuries being encumbered, upon, their child, becoming beset with inconvenience and discomfort. 8. Even though the disabled claimant, through, his rearing cross-objections, within, the instant FAO, has made a prayer, for, enhancing the compensation amount, as, assessed in his favour, under, the impugned award. However, his espousal therein, vis-a-vis, the compensation, borne, in a sum of Rs. 8. Even though the disabled claimant, through, his rearing cross-objections, within, the instant FAO, has made a prayer, for, enhancing the compensation amount, as, assessed in his favour, under, the impugned award. However, his espousal therein, vis-a-vis, the compensation, borne, in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs), being assessed qua him, and, arising from the disabling injuries permanently incapacitating him, to, perform any manual hard work (a), and, with a concomitant loss of future earnings, becoming visited upon him, and, also arising from his being incapacitated, to, participate in sporting activities, is, yet amenable also for rejection, (b) as no evidence stands adduced, vis-a-vis, his being incapacitated, to, participate in any sporting activities, (c) thereupon, with the disabling injuries encumbered, upon, him cannot be inferred, to, hence preclude him to participate in sporting activities, and, obviously when hence, given, the nascent age, of, the disabled claimant, he is unable, to, rear any income, from, his any purported employment, (d) thereupon, both the percentum of the disability, besides, the portion of the body whereon it stood encumbered, not ipso facto, generating any conclusion, qua his, in future becoming perennially impaired hence to rear any income, from, his performing manual work, thereupon the cross-objections, are, dismissed, as, any acceptance of the cross-objections, would, be an inapt recoursing vis-a-vis untenable misadventures, of, surmises. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit, in, the appeal, and, in the cross-objections, and, both are accordingly dismissed. The impugned award is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.