Judgment Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. This is insurer's appeal against the Award dated 24-03-2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haridwar. 2. The claimant Rajkumar Sharma preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the grant of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimant on the fateful day on 2-122002 at 5.30 PM, the claimant respondent no. 1, was going to his home in Subhashgarh along with one Sri Balvinder Singh. When he reached at Malakpur toll post near Valley Restaurant, opposite party Surendra alias Sadhuram, who was driving LML scooter in rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter of the claimant due to which the claimant fell down and sustained multiple injuries. The claimant was admitted in the City Hospital, Haridwar where he remained for 10 days. Thereafter the claimant took treatment from Ramkrishan Sewashram Hospital, Kankhal. He claimed a sum of Rs. 7,05,000/- as com pensation. 3. Opposite party No.1 Surendra alias Sadhuram Jain has denied the factum of the accident and has submitted that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. The insurance company, appellant has admitted the insurance of the scooter but it has been denied that the accident had taken place due to negligence of scooter driver Sri Sadhu Ram. Further it has been stated that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the insurer of the scooter of the claimant has not been impleaded as party in the case. 5. In order to prove his case, the claimant has examined himself as P.W. 1. The opposite parties examined D.W. 1 Dr. Yogesh Kumar D.W. 2 Dr. Subhash Chand and D.W. 3 Ajai Kumar. The claimant also filed copy of F.I.R. Handicap certificate of the claimant, cash memos of medicines, x-ray plates etc. 6. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimant, the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter No. UA 008/0919 by Sri Sadhu Ram. 7. So far as the compensation is concerned the Tribunal has recorded the finding that at the time of accident the age of the injured was 35 years. The claimant has not submitted any certificate of income, therefore, the claims Tribunal has assessed his notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 7. So far as the compensation is concerned the Tribunal has recorded the finding that at the time of accident the age of the injured was 35 years. The claimant has not submitted any certificate of income, therefore, the claims Tribunal has assessed his notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 of the amount for his own expenses by the claimant, the net annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Considering the age of the claimant as 35 years, multiplier of 16 has rightly been selected by the Trial Court. Thus the total loss sustained by the petitioner comes to Rs. 24,000 x 16 = 3,84,000/-. The claimant sustained 55% disability and as such he is entitled to get 55% of Rs. 3,84,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,11,200/-. The Claims Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 72,100/- for expenses incurred by the claimant in his treatment. Beside this the Claims Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental pain and agony. Thus claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,11,200 + 72,100 + 5,000 = Rs. 2,88,300/- as compensation along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 8. Sri K.K. Sah, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding the disability of the claimant as 55% and the amount of compensation awarded is excessive. 9. So far as the rash and negligent driving is concerned, the claimant examined himself and stated on oath that on 2-12-2002 at 5.30 PM near Malakpur Toll post in front of Valley restaurant, opposite party Sadhu Ram dashed the scooter of the claimant by driving his scooter rashly and negligently. This witness was cross-examined at length but nothing has come out to discredit his testimony. Opposite Party Sadhu Ram did not appear in the witness box to state the facts of the accident. Thus we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by opposite party Sri Sadhu Ram. ' 10. Sri K.K. Sah, counsel for the appellant has also assailed the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground that the claimant has not suffered 55% permanent disability. He placed reliance on the statement of D.W. 1 Yogesh Kumar, Radiologist and D.W.2 Subhash Yadav. ' 10. Sri K.K. Sah, counsel for the appellant has also assailed the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground that the claimant has not suffered 55% permanent disability. He placed reliance on the statement of D.W. 1 Yogesh Kumar, Radiologist and D.W.2 Subhash Yadav. In their cross examination both the witnesses have categorically stated that they cannot make any remarks regarding the disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Haridwar. D.W. 1 Yogesh Kumar has stated in his cross examination as under: 11. Thus the credibility of the disability certificate cannot be assailed and on the basis of the disability certificate 35-8 the Claims Tribunal was justified in holding 55% permanent disability sustained by the claimant in the alleged accident. 12. According to the claimant he was doing agriculture work. The claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs. 3,0001- per month or Rs. 36,0001- per annum. After deducting one third amount for his own expenses the annual loss of income assessed to be Rs. 24,0001-. At the time of accident the age of the petitioner was 35 years and thus a multiplier of 16 was selected. In this way the compensation works out to 24,000 x 16 = 3,84,0001-. The disability of the claimant was held to be 55% and as such the claimant is entitled to get 55% of the total amount of compensation Le. 2,11,200/-. The claimant filed bills and cash memos of Rs. 72,100/- for the amount incurred in his treatment. A further sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the claimant towards mental pain and sufferings and as such the total compensation was granted to him is Rs. 2,88,3001-. We do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the Claims Tribunal. 13. The Apex Court in the case T. N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajapriya and others. (2005) 6 SCC 236, has observed in paragraph•1 0 as under: "10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters': and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. " 14. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters': and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. " 14. Thus we find that the amount of compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal by applying appropriate multiplier is neither excessive nor exorbitant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus we find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal. 15. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. ***