JUDGMENT : B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the first respondent-claimant, and the appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The first respondent-claimant filed a claim petition in MVC No.556/2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi (for short, 'the Tribunal'), seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident on 20.08.2008 when he was travelling on his motorcycle. The first respondent- claimant contended that the accident was brought about by a Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-20-B-2461 because its driver was rash and negligent. The first respondent- claimant has also contended that he was inpatient with KMC Hospital, Manipal for about eight days initially and he had to undergo repeated hospitalization for treatment; he has spent over a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'medical expenses' out of which, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is paid directly to the Hospital by M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company from whom he had secured a medi-claim health policy covering such risk. 3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, has found that the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti Omni Van. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,93,034/- calling upon the owner of the Maruti Omni van and its insurer [the appellant] to pay this sum of Rs.2,93,034/- awarded under the following heads: S. No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000 2 Loss of amenities in life Rs. 10,000 3 Loss of future income and earning capacity Rs. 1,66,300 4 Medical expenses Rs. 13,434 5 Loss of income during period of treatment Rs. 53,300 6 Conveyance, attendant charges, food, nourished food Rs. 10,000 Total Rs. 2,93,034 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submits that there is no dispute about the accident or the insurer's liability and the present appeal is filed because the insurer is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and unjustified in the following circumstances: (a) A sum of Rs.1,66,300/- is awarded towards 'loss of future income and earning capacity' though it is admitted that the claimant-first respondent has received promotion in the immediate vicinity of reporting to duty after the accident. The learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and unjustified in the following circumstances: (a) A sum of Rs.1,66,300/- is awarded towards 'loss of future income and earning capacity' though it is admitted that the claimant-first respondent has received promotion in the immediate vicinity of reporting to duty after the accident. The fact that the claimant-first respondent has thus received promotion demonstrates that the claimant-first respondent has not suffered any loss of ability, and therefore the amount awarded under the aforesaid head would be unjustified. (b) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.53,300/- towards 'loss of income during period of treatment'. However, there is no evidence to justify that the claimant the first respondent had not received pay during the convalescence period. There could not have been award under this head without specific evidence especially in the light of the undisputed fact that he has received promotion immediately after reporting to duty. (c) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,434/- towards 'medical expenses' despite the evidence that medical expenses have been reimbursed by M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company under the health policy of the claimant-first respondent. Therefore, this is also unjustified. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer to persuade this Court to accept his submissions has taken this Court through the evidence of the PW.1, the claimant-first respondent and PW.2, Sri.Sridhara Bhandary working as Supervisor with the claimant's employer. 5. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,66,300/- towards 'loss of future income and earning capacity', taking into account the permanent disability and the functional disability at 8% based on the Doctor's opinion. The fact that he has been granted promotion on reporting to duty cannot be a contra condition by itself to deny compensation towards 'loss of future income and earning capacity'. The first respondent - claimant's promotion would be a function of the service rendered by him in the days before the date of the accident. The nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and the assessment of permanent disability [functional disability] at 8% does not persuade this Court to hold that the award of sum of Rs.1,66,300/- towards 'loss of future income and earning capacity' is unjustified or unreasonable. 6. The next ground is that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.53,300/- (for four months between Sept. 2008 and Dec. 6. The next ground is that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.53,300/- (for four months between Sept. 2008 and Dec. 2008) as 'loss of income during the laid up period' and this is unjustified because there is no evidence on record to indicate that the claimant -first respondent was indeed without pay for four months between September-December 2008. However, a perusal of the evidence of PW.2 demonstrates that though the claimant-first respondent had applied for leave for 120 days, leave of only 25 days was sanctioned. This is a circumstance which will have to be considered in assessing whether award of Rs.53,300/- towards loss of income during laid up period is reasonable, and this Court, on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, is of the opinion that this evidence and the other evidence on record would establish loss of pay for four months as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, interference cannot be made on this ground. 7. Similarly, no interference could be made on the award towards 'medical expenses' because the claimant's specific case is that out of total sum of over Rs.2,00,000/- spent by him, a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- is reimbursed under a Medi-claim policy, and the Tribunal has awarded amount only for the bills which have not been reimbursed. 8. For the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant-first respondent.