JUDGMENT Hon. Rajesh Tandon J. Heard Shri Sarvesh Agrawal , counsel for the appellant and Shri Prabhat Pandey, counsel for the respondents. 2. This is insurer's appeal. 3. By the present appeal, filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and award dated 28.6.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 52 of 2006. 4. Briefly stated, a motor accident claim petition no. 52 of 2006 was filed under Sections 166/140 of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. According to the claimant, on 2.9.2005, the claimant Khajan Singh was going towards Judge Farm, Haldwani by Scooter No. UP-04-9128. As soon as he reached near Scindia School at about 3.30 p.m., Car No. UA-04C-1145 dashed the scooter of the claimant as a result of which the claimant fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The said car was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. As a result of the said accident, the leg of the claimant got fractured. He was admitted in Krishna Hospital, Haldwani where he underwent medical treatment and an operation was carried on his leg. The claimant remained in the hospital for four days. There remains pain in his leg and he has to take painkiller medicines for relief. It has been stated that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, he could not attend his office for 68 days and resultantly he has suffered loss of income to the extent of Rs. 20,792/-. The claimant has become permanently disabled to the extent of 24 per cent and he was deprived from the promotional aspects. The claimant has to spend a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in future operation. The claimant also kept an attendant for looking after him and on the attendant the claimant had spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Further, it has been stated that the claimant has suffered mental and physical agony due to accident in question. A sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been claimed towards compensation. 5. The defendant no. 1 Khagendra Bhatt has filed the written statement admitting therein that he is the owner of the car in question. It has been submitted that the driver of the aforesaid car was driving the same cautiously and the Scooter No. U.P.-04-9128 was being driven rashly and negligently. 2,25,000/- has been claimed towards compensation. 5. The defendant no. 1 Khagendra Bhatt has filed the written statement admitting therein that he is the owner of the car in question. It has been submitted that the driver of the aforesaid car was driving the same cautiously and the Scooter No. U.P.-04-9128 was being driven rashly and negligently. The said Scooter dashed the car in question and caused the accident. There was no fault on the part of the driver of the car in question. The compensation has been claimed in exaggeration. The car in question was insured with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. And, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claim. 6. The insurance company in question has filed a written statement submitting therein that the insurance company was not informed about the accident in question. The compensation has been claimed in exaggeration. The owner of the vehicle in question has violated the insurance policy. It has also been submitted that the claimant has to prove the facts stated in the claim petition. 7. The defendant no. 2 Bhaskar Kumar Pandey who was driving the vehicle in question has filed a written statement wherein he has reiterated the facts as stated by the owner of the car in question. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues :- "1. As to whether on 2.9.2005 at about 3.30 p.m. at Judge Farm, Haldwani the driver of the Car no. UA-04 C/1145 dashed the scooter of the claimant by driving the car rashly and negligently and in consequence, the claimant sustained grievous injuries? 2. As to whether the owner of the car in question has violated the insurance policies? If yes, its effect? 3. As to whether the accident had taken place due to dashing of the car by scooterist by driving the same rashly and negligently? 4. Relief? 9. The claimant has examined himself as P.W.1. Towards the documentary evidence, the claimant has produced 39 documents as per list 5 ga 1 including copy of registration certificate, insurance policy, driving license, discharge certificate from the hospital, first information report, leave certificate and bills pertaining to the medical employees, driving license of the claimant, income tax return, medical certificate, X-ray plate, etc. 10. The defendants have not adduced any oral evidence. Towards the documentary evidence, the defendant no. 10. The defendants have not adduced any oral evidence. Towards the documentary evidence, the defendant no. 1 has filed insurance policy of the car in question, registration certificate and driving license. 11. While deciding as to whether on 2.9.2005 at about 3.30 p.m. at Judge Farm, Haldwani the driver of the Car No. UA-04 C/1145 dashed the Scooter of the claimant by driving the car rashly and negligently and in consequence the claimant sustained grievous injuries and further as to whether the accident had taken place due to hitting the car by the Scooterist by driving the same rashly and negligently, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of P.W.1 Khajan Singh who has deposed that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the car in question. The statement of this witness has not been controverted by the defendants by producing any oral evidence. Further, this witness remained unshaken in his cross-examination. The claims tribunal has also taken into consideration the First Information Report. The claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident in question had taken place due to hitting the Scooter by the car in question by driving the car rashly and negligently as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. 12. While deciding as to whether the owner of the car in question has violated the terms of the insurance policy, the claims tribunal has placed reliance on the registration certificate, driving license and insurance policy of the car in question. The claims tribunal has recorded the finding that on the said date of the accident the car was insured with the insurance company in question and the driver was also in possession of a valid driving license and, therefore, the said car was being driven in accordance with the policy of insurance company. 13. While deciding with regard to quantum of compensation, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the disability certificate which shows that the claimant has become permanently disabled to the extent of 21 per cent. On the basis of income tax return filed by the claimant which shows that the basic pay of the claimant was Rs. 4,700/- and in the same income tax return the age of the claimant is shown as 1.2.1963. Therefore, the claims tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant to the extent of Rs. On the basis of income tax return filed by the claimant which shows that the basic pay of the claimant was Rs. 4,700/- and in the same income tax return the age of the claimant is shown as 1.2.1963. Therefore, the claims tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant to the extent of Rs. 4,700/- per month or 56,400/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd of the same towards own expenses, the amount was worked out to the extent of Rs. 37,600/-./ Further the age of the claimant was taken to be 42 years on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the income tax return. The claims tribunal has selected the multiplier of 15 and by multiplying the same with Rs. 37,600/-, the amount was worked out to the extent of Rs. 5,64,200/-. Further, taking into consideration the disability to the extent of 21 per cent, the claims tribunal has worked out 21 per cent of Rs. 5,64,000/- i.e. Rs. 1,18,440/-. Beside this, the claims tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the medical bills submitted by the claimant and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and physical agony. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,63,440/- has been worked out which was rounded off to the extent of Rs. 1,64,000/- towards compensation alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. So far as liability for indemnifying the amount is concerned, the insurance company was held responsible for the same as the car in question was insured with the insurance company on the date of the accident. 14. Counsel for the appellant has submitted hat the multiplier has been selected on higher side and, therefore, the compensation granted to the claimant is highly exorbitant. 15. A perusal of the record shows that the claims tribunal has applied the multiplier method and amount of compensation has been calculated on the basis of formula adopted under Section 163-A of Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. 16. However, apart from the medical expenses to the extent of Rs. 35,000/-, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for mental agony which I deem to be on higher side. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is being deducted from the amount of compensation awarded by claims tribunal towards mental agony. The claimant shall be entitled for Rs. 1,53,400/- towards compensation. 17. 35,000/-, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for mental agony which I deem to be on higher side. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is being deducted from the amount of compensation awarded by claims tribunal towards mental agony. The claimant shall be entitled for Rs. 1,53,400/- towards compensation. 17. Subject to the aforesaid modification in the mental agony, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.