Per B.L. Bhat, Judge: 1. Two claim petitions titled as Mohammad Sultan Asim Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Ganai and others and Mohammad Sultan Asim and another Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Ganai and others came to be filed before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred to as the tribunal below), where they came to be registered as Claim Petition No.72 of 1997 and 73 of 1997. These claim petitions are alleged to have arisen from one and the same vehicular accident which took place on 20-4-1997 at Lawaypora, Srinagar, when the respondent-claimant was enroute to Magam from Srinagar while driving his own scooter and his son Suhail Sultan was a pillion rider. The scooter was hit by a bus bearing registration No.JKB-8766, driven by respondent Manzoor Ahmad Ganai, coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which, both the respondent No.1 and his son Suhail Sultan, pillion rider sustained injuries as a result of which Suhail Sultan succumbed to injuries instantaneously on spot, and the respondent claimant sustained injuries and suffered disability. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim petition, inter-alia stating that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by an unauthorised driver who was not holding effective driving licence. The respondent-driver and the owner of the vehicle S. Harbans Singh have chosen to remain absent and the case was set exparate against them. The parties went to trial with the issues framed in the both the cases on 5-8-1998, which are almost common. In support of his claim, the claimant/respondent examined his witnesses and in rebuttal, the appellant did not adduce any evidence. 3. In claim petition No.72/1993, petitioner besides himself came to examine Mohammad Yasin, Nazir Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh, Dr. Munir Farooq, ASI Ghulam Mustaffa, Dr. Bashir Ahmad, Mohammad Sharief and Noor-ud-Din Parray, Advocate. The Tribunal below on conclusion of trial in both the cases came to award compensation of Rs.29,78,530.75 together with interest @12% on the awarded sum of Rs.7,37,330/- from the date of institution till the final realization of the entire awarded amount against the respondent No.3/appellant. Costs of Rs. 15,000/- also came to be awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent. In claim petition No.72/1993, an amount of Rs.2.88 lacs together with interest @12% from the date of the claim petition till its final realization also came to be awarded. 4. Costs of Rs. 15,000/- also came to be awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent. In claim petition No.72/1993, an amount of Rs.2.88 lacs together with interest @12% from the date of the claim petition till its final realization also came to be awarded. 4. These awards came to be challenged before this Court, by the appellant-Insurance Company by preferring two separate appeals which came to be registered as CIA No. 45 of 1999 and CIA No.46 of 1999. In the said appeals, the awards came to be assailed on the ground that the driver/respondent at the time of the accident in question was not holding effective driving licence in as much as it was not carrying P.S.V. endorsement, as a result of which, he was not authorised to drive the offending vehicle and that the award passed is not based on correct para meters. The learned Single Judge came to dismiss these appeals together with costs after holding that no permission has been sought to file the appeal on wider grounds, the amount of quantum cannot be challenged in appeal. This finding of learned Single Judge is impugned in these appeals. The finding of the learned Judge impugned in these appeals run counter to the Apex Court Judgment in case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhushan Sachdeva, AIR 2002 SC 662, wherein their lordships of the Apex Court have observed in para 9 of the Judgment that: 9. Can it be said that the Insurance Company should not have any grievance at all even in a case where the award appears to be unjust to that Company? We must bear in mind that the nationalised insurance Companies in India are holding public money. What they have to deal with is public fund. They are accountable to the public for every pie of it. If it is held that no insurance company should feel aggrieved even if the award is seemintly unjust and that such awarded amount should go out of the public fund, it is public interest which suffers. If the insurance company has reason to believe that the award was obtained fraudulently which fact was not known to the insured, should we allow public money to be given to satisfy such an award? In such cases the insurance company must feel aggrieved. If the insurance company has reason to believe that the award was obtained fraudulently which fact was not known to the insured, should we allow public money to be given to satisfy such an award? In such cases the insurance company must feel aggrieved. Any interpretation denying such aggrieved insurance companies the opportunity to seek the legal remedy of appeal should not be adopted unless there is a statutory compulsion. There is nothing in Section 173 or in the other relevant, provisions of the Act which debars the insurance company to resort to the remedy of appeal when it knows that the award is unjust.� 5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases supra, the impugned judgments recorded by learned Single Judge are lible to be set aside and is ordered accordingly. Ordinarily we ought to have remanded these appeals back to learned Single Judge for disposal afresh after setting aside the impugned judgments in the appeals, but having regard to the fact that respondent No. 1 who is the victim of accident and his son who was a student of Pre-University class lost his life, therefore, remanding of these appeals to the learned Single Judge will cause further delay, therefore, we proceed to decide these appeals by this common judgment. 6. In the impugned judgments the Tribunal has recorded a firm finding with respect to issue No.1 which is almost common in both the claim petitions, holding that the respondent-Driver Manzoor Ahmad while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.JKB-8766 rashly and negligently hit the scooterist-claimant, as a result of which, the scooterist-respondent claimant and Suhail Sultan, his son sustained injuries and latter on Suhail Sultan succumbed to injuries instantaneously, while as the scooterist suffered disablement. This finding of fact in both the claim petitions are not assailed in these appeals, thus have attained the finality. CIA No. 45/1999 In case titled R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1995 ACJ 366, the Apex Court has laid broad guidelines for fixing compensation payable to a victim of an accident. In para No.6 of this Judgment, their lordships have observed as under:- 9. Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. In para No.6 of this Judgment, their lordships have observed as under:- 9. Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress of life.� 7. Having regard to this law laid down by the Apex Court in the authority supra, let us examine in brief the evidence of the respondent-claimant with respect to the issue of quantum of compensation. 8. Perusal of the record reveals that with respect to the issue in question, as already indicated, the claimant-respondent has examined his witnesses. He has also placed statement of the medical bills along with vouchers, prescriptions issued by different doctors including railway tickets on the file. 9. Respondent-claimant while giving sequence of events has deposed that in the accident in question, he and his son sustained injuries. His son succumbed to these injuries and he himself sustained injuries on his both arms and head. After the said accident, he needed several persons to support him. Now he needs the services of one attendant. Despite the treatment of the doctors attending to him, here, he could not be treated which constrained him to go to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, in the month of June 1997 for consultation of the specialists and went there along with his wife and two attendants. Now he needs the services of one attendant. Despite the treatment of the doctors attending to him, here, he could not be treated which constrained him to go to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, in the month of June 1997 for consultation of the specialists and went there along with his wife and two attendants. In Delhi, he had to spent Rs.50,000/- for the tests, medicines, etc. Despite all this, he did not recover as a result of which, he consulted Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Head of Department of Neurology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar who again referred him to Delhi. After waiting for several days there, he got admitted in AIIMS New Delhi on 06-10-1997 and was discharged on 21-10-1997. During this period, his right arm was operated upon. For this stay in Delhi, he spent Rs.21,4267- as hospital expenses and Rs.30,000/- on diet and stay of his attendants. Thereafter he returned back to Srinagar in the month of October 1997, after he was directed by the AIIMS New Delhi to return after four weeks, for second surgery. After four weeks, he again went to Delhi along with his wife for further check-up, but could not get admitted in the AIIMS, New Delhi, as a result of which, he had to return back with an advice to come back in the month of February 1998. He accordingly went to Delhi in the month of February 1998. During this trip, hrs left arm was operated upon. On this he spend Rs. 13,789/- as hospital ex penses and for his stay, diet and on his journey, he spent Rs.35000/-. In December 1998, he again went to Delhi for check-up, which costed him Rs.20,000/-. He is still feeling pain for which he has hired the services of Acu Punture doctor, who charged him Rs.350/- after every ten days. The estimated expenditure on this count is Rs. 12000/- per year. He has further stated that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month in the early months of 1997. Now having become permanently disabled, he is not able to earn anything. He is required to go to Physiotherapy centre for which he has to spend Rs. 9000/- per year. He had first engaged an attendant against Rs. 1000/- per month. He has further stated that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month in the early months of 1997. Now having become permanently disabled, he is not able to earn anything. He is required to go to Physiotherapy centre for which he has to spend Rs. 9000/- per year. He had first engaged an attendant against Rs. 1000/- per month. Now that attendant has left him there fore, he had to engage another attendant to whom he is paying Rs.3000/- per month, besides his diet and clothing. He needs an attendant, round the clock. In case the pain subsists in his arm for more than a year, then as per advice of the doctors, he had to go abroad for future treatment for which the estimated expenditure is Rs. 7 to 9 lacs. He needs a driver, to which he is supposed to pay Rs.3000/- per month as his salary. 10. This is in the evidence of PW Mohammad Yasin, PW Nazir Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad that in the accident in question, Suhail Sultan met with an un-narural death and petitioner Mohammad Sultan Asim was seriously injured. Before the accident in question, he was a practising lawyer and now he is rendered idle. 11. PW Mohammad Ashraf Sidiq has deposed that petitioner Mohammad Sultan met with an accident in which he was seriously injured and he has lost his son also. After this accident, the petitioner-claimant was hospitalized in SKIMS, Srinagar. After remaining there for two days, he was shifted to Bone and Joint Hospital, Baramulla, Srinagar, where he remained hospitalized for a month. Thereafter he left for Delhi, to which place he was accompanied by his wife and by other two persons who remained there with the injured for one month. In Delhi, the injured had taken a house on rent, were he had to undergo MRI and other tests. The petitioner-claimant is rendered handicapped. He cannot even take his own food. The injured has kept an attendant to whom, he is paying Rs.3000/- per month. Later on also, the petitioner claimant went to Delhi three times for the treatment, where he was attended by his wife and another person. For Delhi trips, the claimant-petitioner has spent Rs. 1,25,000/- for meeting the medical expenses, accommodation charges, diet and fair expenses. In Srinagar also, the claimant-petitioner is undergoing Physiotherapy. 12. Later on also, the petitioner claimant went to Delhi three times for the treatment, where he was attended by his wife and another person. For Delhi trips, the claimant-petitioner has spent Rs. 1,25,000/- for meeting the medical expenses, accommodation charges, diet and fair expenses. In Srinagar also, the claimant-petitioner is undergoing Physiotherapy. 12. Noor-ud-Din PW has deposed that the petitioner claimant was a busy lawyer. Before he met with and accident, he used to earn Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. 13. PW Dr. Munir Farooq has deposed that Mohammad Sultan was admitted in Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar under MRD No.510 on 20-4-1998 (this must be 20-4-1997). He remained under his treatment in the hospital, during his admission in the Hospital. Thereafter he examined him on his follow up examination in the Hospital. He testified the photograph of the petitioner-claimant annexed with the certificate issued by the Hospital and has testified the correctness of the said certificate. He has further deposed that the patient had suffered fracture dislocation of left elbow with radial and medium nerve palsies on left side and right monoplegia of upper limb post brachial plexux injury. He has opined that the injury is grievous in nature. The patient is rendered permanently handicapped. The earning capacity of the injured stand totally effected. To the close of his evidence, on cross examination, he has deposed that both the arms of the petitioner has become useless, He is not in a position to work. 14. PW Dr. Bashir Ahmad has deposed that claimant Mohammad Sultan was admitted in the Bone and Joint Hospital on 20-4-1997 and was discharged on 5-5-1997. He has testified the correctness of his certificate by deposing that it bears his signature and is in his hand writing. This certificate is marked as EXP on the file. He has further deposed that generally medicines are provided in the hospital, but in the rear need, the patients purchase it from open market. 15. The certificate on the file WXPM which is attached with the photograph of the claimant-petitioner is issued by the Medical Superintendent, Government Hospital for Bone and Joint, Srinagar and signed by three Lecturers of the Department of Orthopaedics of the Hospital. Correctness of this certificate is proved by Dr. Bashir Ahmad and Dr. Munir Farooq, who attended the petitioner-claimant in the said hospital. Correctness of this certificate is proved by Dr. Bashir Ahmad and Dr. Munir Farooq, who attended the petitioner-claimant in the said hospital. This certificate inter-alia reveals that: The patient was having fracture dislocation left elbow with radial and medium nerve palsies and monoplecies (Rt) upper limb due to Brachial plexus injury. The injury is grievous and is permanently handicapped. Permanent disability of more than fifty (50%) percent.� 16. Considered the evidence of the petitioner/claimant and his witnesses. This evidence is unrebutted on the file. Considering the future loss of income of the petitioner-claimant due to the accident in question, it is proved on the file that the claimant-petitioner is a victim of tragic accident in which his both the arms have become useless. 17. Medical certificate inter-alia reveals that the petitioner-claimant has suffered more than 50% disability. PW Dr. Bashir Ahmad one of the signatory to the certificate has tried to improve his earlier endorsement on the certificate by disposing that the injured has suffered 100% disability. This version of the medical witness Bashir Ahmad is without any basis and same is discarded. However, it is proved from the documentary evidence EXPM that the petitioner-claimant has suffered more than 50% disability, which can under no circumstances be less than 50%, this being so, the bodily integrity of the petitioner-claimant has substantially effected, which as indicated is 50%. 18. The petitioner has stated his age at the time of accident 45 years and has further stated that at the time of this accident, his monthly income by practising as lawyer in the law courts was Rs.10,000/-. In support of this version that he was earning Rs.10,000/- in his profession, he has not produced any documentary evidence. However, keeping in view this version of the petitioner is unrebutted on the file and also having regard to the age of the petitioner -claimant, he must be practising in Law Courts for the last more than 15 years and would have been earning this much of the amount on the date of accident. Therefore, taking monthly income of the respondent-claimant Rs. 10,000/- on the date of accident, we proceed to determine the loss of his future income. 19. Out of Rs.10,000/- deduct Rs.2000/- as income tax at source and keep apart l/3rd of the remaining amount for his personal expenses. Therefore, taking monthly income of the respondent-claimant Rs. 10,000/- on the date of accident, we proceed to determine the loss of his future income. 19. Out of Rs.10,000/- deduct Rs.2000/- as income tax at source and keep apart l/3rd of the remaining amount for his personal expenses. After deducting the said amount the monthly home taking income of the petitioner comes to Rs. 5,334/-. It is proved that the claimant has suffered 50% disability, therefore, his future monthly loss of income comes to Rs.2,666/- in turn the annual future loss come to Rs. 32,004/-. It is proved that the claimant was 45 years old at the time of accident, therefore, we consider 14 years as a suitable multiplier. Thus the total future economic loss to the petitioner comes to Rs.4,48,056.00 which deserves to be awarded. 20. It is proved that the petitioner™s both arms have become useless, as a result of which it is proved that he has suffered 50% disability. He cannot even feed himself. Therefore, the claimant needs services of an attendant throughout his life for attending to his daily routines, to whom he shall have to pay at least minimum wages which are fixed at Rs. 1500/- monthly. As indicated, 14 years have been found as suitable multiplier by us, therefore, an amount of Rs.2,52,000/- deserves to be awarded. 21. As indicated this is proved on the file that the claimant/respondent, the victim of the accident in question has sustained injuries as a result of which he has finally suffered 50% disability. In this connection he remained hospitalized in the Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar, SKIMS Soura Srinagar and visited AIIMS New Delhi three times, where firstly his right arm was operated upon on his second trip and thereafter on third trip, his left arm was operated. For all this, the claimant must have spent a hand some amount on his treatment, purchase of medicines, accommodation in Delhi, his to and fro expenses, expenses of his attendants which included his wife and brother also. The petitioner has estimated this amount at Rs. 1,70,2097-. This amount appears to be reasonable and deserves to be awarded. 22. This takes us to consider the non-pecuniary damages. The petitioner has estimated this amount at Rs. 1,70,2097-. This amount appears to be reasonable and deserves to be awarded. 22. This takes us to consider the non-pecuniary damages. It is proved on the file that for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident in question, he was operated upon three times and he has suffered 50% disability being handicapped and a disable person. He must have been facing inferiority complex. He cannot drive the car not to speak of scooter, cannot feed himself, cannot even enjoy the amenities of normal life. Therefore, under the head ˜pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the each head appears to be reasonable and deserves to be awarded to him. 23. The claimant has also claimed Rs. 7 to 9 lacs for future treatment. To prove the version he has not produced any medical evidence. Therefore, this amount cannot be awarded. However, this is a matter of common knowledge that in the case of fracture, physiotherapy is one of the modes of treatment which requires to be pursued for long time. In his evidence the claimant has claimed Rs.9000/- which deserves to be granted at least for a period of three years. Therefore, an amount of Rs.27000/- deserves to be granted under this head and is accordingly awarded. 24. This takes us to another ground pressed in service by the appellant Company to the effect that the respondent-driver on the date of accident was not holding effective driving licence, therefore, the insured committed a bread of policy in allowing the offending vehicle to be driven by an unauthorised person therefore can not be saddled with liability to compensate the claimant petitioner. In this behalf it is profitable to refer to the interim order recorded by the Tribunal below in the file dated 23.1.1999. It reads: - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL SRTNAGAR. Before, Mir Mansoor Ahmad Mohammad Sultan Vs. Manzoor Ahmad & Ors. and Mohammad Sultan Vs. Manzoor Ahmad & Ors. Mr. Farooq Ahmad Qadri for the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 in exparte. Mr. Nissar Ahmad Dandroo for the respondent No.3. ORDER Heard and perused. These two files are outcome of an accident which appears to have been caused so allegedly by respondent No.1. The inquiry stands concluded. Both the cases were fixed for arguments today. Mr. Mr. Farooq Ahmad Qadri for the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 in exparte. Mr. Nissar Ahmad Dandroo for the respondent No.3. ORDER Heard and perused. These two files are outcome of an accident which appears to have been caused so allegedly by respondent No.1. The inquiry stands concluded. Both the cases were fixed for arguments today. Mr. Dandroo submitted that driver was not having a valid licence, for the reason that the driving licence is not bearing PSV endorsement. At this stage one selection grade Constable namely Abdul Majid 928-S appeared and presented the driving licence in original alongwith the copy of the order of this tribunal. The perusal of the driving licence reveals that the driver is empowered to drive the vehicles including passenger vehicles throughout Jammu and Kashmir State. Mr. Dandroo is directed to go through the driving licence. He was confronted with the endorsement.. After going through the licence Mr. Dandroo accepted the fact that the driving licence bears the said endorsement.. The original copy is hereby returned to the aforesaid constable for handing over the same to the driver. However, he is directed to obtain copies of the same and place two copies on the files and one be given to Mr. Dandroo for necessary action. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Let the file come up for judgment on 1st of February 1999. Announced Officer Sd/- 23.01.1999 MACT Srinagar 25. In view of this clear cut finding of the Tribunal below in the said interlocutory order which is never challenged in revision or otherwise therefore has attained finality. From the order it is manifest that the learned counsel for the appellant appearing before the Tribunal has admitted the fact that the respondent No.2, the driver, was holding effective and valid driving licence on the date of accident. Therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to turn around and to assail the validity of the Driving Licence. This being so, the argument that the Driver-respondent was not holding effective driving licence on the date of accident is over (sic). Therefore, all considered the following amount are held just and reasonable compensation in the case in hand 1. Loss of future income :4,48,056.00 2. Post and future expenses of an attendant :2,52,200.00 3. Expenditure incurred on treatment :1,70,209.00 4. Pain and suffering :2,00,000.00 5. Loss of enjoyment and amenties of life :2,00,000.00 6. Therefore, all considered the following amount are held just and reasonable compensation in the case in hand 1. Loss of future income :4,48,056.00 2. Post and future expenses of an attendant :2,52,200.00 3. Expenditure incurred on treatment :1,70,209.00 4. Pain and suffering :2,00,000.00 5. Loss of enjoyment and amenties of life :2,00,000.00 6. Future medical treatment :2,70,000.00 Thus an amount of Rs. 12,97,465.00 the rounding of which comes to 12,97,500.00 deserves to be allowed and is accordingly awarded minus the amount received under no fault scheme together with 9% from the date of application till its full realisation. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the award is accordingly modified. CIA No. 46/1999 In this appeal though the judgment of the Tribunal has been assailed on various grounds, but Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stressed that the Tribunal below assessed the loss of monthly dependency at Rs.1500/- per month and has found also 14 years suitable multiplier by observing in page 5 para 1 of its judgment that: ... Keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the deceased, multiplier 14 is just and appropriate multiplier, applicable in the instant case.� But while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal below had applied 16 years as multiplier. This submission of Mr. Kawoosa is based on facts. Therefore, by applying multiplier of 14 to the monthly assessed amount of Rs.1500/-, the total sum of dependency comes to 1500 x 12 x 14 = 2,52,000/-. Therefore, this amount deserves to be awarded to the claimant respondent. Mr. Kawoosa further submits that the rate of interest is awarded at 12% when the law holding the field which has been set at rest by the Apex Court is 9%. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the award is modified to the extent indicated above minus the interim relief received, together with interest 9% from the date of application.