1. By the medium of this appeal, appellant has challenged the award and order dated 14-9-2007 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantnag, in claim Petition No. 02 of 2001 titled Mst. Zeba Vs. Ghulam Rasool Bhat and others, whereby Rs. 4,40,000/- with 9% interest came to be passed in favour of the claimant against the insurer-appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that claimant Mst. Zeba filed a claim petition, being the victim of vehicular accident before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and claimed compensation. It is averred in the petition that on 15-1-2001, the claimant was crossing the road at Pujteng, Srinagar-Jammu National Highway and was hit by a Maruti car bearing registration No. JKE 1221, which was being driven by Ghulam Rasool Bhat, rashly and negligently, as a result of which she sustained injuries which rendered her permanently disabled. She had sustained injuries on left leg, besides her two upper incisor (upper teeth) were also broken and her nasal spectrum also sustained fracture. She was taken to Bijbehara Hospital, where from she was referred to the Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar, where she was admitted. She is now not in a position to walk and work and is also not able to speak properly. The claimant has claimed Rs. 19,40,000/- as compensation with interest, as per break up given in the claim petition. 3. Non-applicants viz. Driver, owner and Insurer appeared and filed their written statements, contesting the claim petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 7-7-2002: - 1. Whether the petitioner was injured because of rash and negligent driving of the respondent driver on the material date at material place? OPP. 2. What is the nature, gravity and extent of injuries suffered by the petitioner? OPP. 3. Whether she is entitled to any compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP. 4. Whether respondent insurance company is not liable, if so, how? OPR-3. 5. Claimant Mst. Zaiba has examined Mohammad Maqbool Bhat, Ghulam Ahmad Ganai, Ghulam Qadir Ganai, Dr. Tafazul Majid Surgeon Specialist as witnesses in support her claim and also appeared herself. Insurer-appellant Company has examined Peerzada Noor-ud-Din, Licensing Clerk, RTO Office, Mushtaq Ahmad Sales Assistant National Insurance Company in its defence. The driver and owner have not examined any witness. Issue no. 1. 6. Zaiba has examined Mohammad Maqbool Bhat, Ghulam Ahmad Ganai, Ghulam Qadir Ganai, Dr. Tafazul Majid Surgeon Specialist as witnesses in support her claim and also appeared herself. Insurer-appellant Company has examined Peerzada Noor-ud-Din, Licensing Clerk, RTO Office, Mushtaq Ahmad Sales Assistant National Insurance Company in its defence. The driver and owner have not examined any witness. Issue no. 1. 6. All the witnesses examined by the petitioner claimant have deposed that Mst. Ziba became victim of vehicular accident on Pujteng road at National Highway which was caused by the driver namely Ghulam Rasool Bhat, while driving the maruti car bearing registration No. JKE 1221 rashly and negligently. She sustained injuries on left leg and face, which caused dis-figuration to her face. She also lost upper incisors (two teeth). She was rushed to Bijbehara Hospital, where from she was referred to the Bone and Joint Hospital and there-after to SKIMS Soura, Srinagar. She was bed ridden for a pretty long time. She is not in a position to walk and work, though being a villager, she was performing agriculture vocations and would have earned 200/- to 300/- per day. FIR No. 14/2001 came to be lodged in Police Station Bijbehara under sections 279 and 337 RPC and during the course of investigation the offending vehicle along with other documents was seized and the seizure memos came to be exhibited as EXPW-1, EXPW-1/1, EXPW-2 and EXPW-1/3. The driving license and other documents came to be released subsequently in favour of the owner and the driver by the court of competent jurisdiction. 7. Dr. Tafazul Majid has stated that while examining the victim, he had noticed that both bones tibia and Fibula of the left leg were fractured. Nozal bones and interior teeth were also broken. The said injuries have caused dis-figuration of face of the victim which has rendered her permanently disabled forever. 8. The witnesses examined by the insurance company have deposed that the driver Ghulam Rasool Bhat was having a driving licence to drive heavy transport vehicle goods and he was not capable to drive light motor vehicle. 9. As discussed above, there is ample evidence on the file to show that the driver Ghulam Rasool Bhat has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at Pujteng Jammu-Srinagar National Highway on 15-1-2001 and has hit the victim who sustained multiple injuries. 9. As discussed above, there is ample evidence on the file to show that the driver Ghulam Rasool Bhat has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at Pujteng Jammu-Srinagar National Highway on 15-1-2001 and has hit the victim who sustained multiple injuries. There was no rebuttal on the part of the appellant. In the given circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the leaned Presiding Officer has rightly decided issue no. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the non-applicants i.e. owner, driver and the insurer. Issue no. 2. 10. Dr. expert has deposed that Mst. Zaiba has suffered injuries of grievance nature which have caused dis-figuration to her face. She is not in a position to walk and is also not in a position to perform the agriculture vocation, thereby she has lost income of Rs. 200/- to 300/- per day, which she would have earned while performing agricultural vocations. It is also proved by the petitioner that the injuries sustained by her have dis-figured her face and has rendered her ugly and she is undergoing and has to undergo such pain till she is alive. Her two teeth were also broken which is otherwise a permanent disablement as per description given in section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads: "142. Permanent disablement. - For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (i) of section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving: - a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or b) destruction of permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face." 11. The petitioner has proved issue No. 2 also. Thus the findings returned by the Tribunal needs no interference vis-a-vis issue No. 2. Issue No. 3. 12. The petitioner has proved that her age was 45 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 200/- to 300/- per day and is not in a position to earn the same, because she stands rendered permanently disabled due to said vehicular accident. Issue No. 3. 12. The petitioner has proved that her age was 45 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 200/- to 300/- per day and is not in a position to earn the same, because she stands rendered permanently disabled due to said vehicular accident. By guess work, it can safely be held that she was performing work at home by preparing meals and doing other day today works for her family and was also supposed to maintain house and house hold goods. The injuries have rendered her permanently disabled and is not in a position to work and walk. There is also evidence on file to show that she was performing agricultural vocations and now is not in a position to do any such work now. Thus it can be safely held that the she was at least earning Rs. 3000 per month. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd which is not warranted under law. I wonder how 1/3rd came to be deducted. However, it is unfortunate that the claimant has not challenged award either by way of appeal or by cross objection. Thus in the given circumstances, the compensation awarded under the said head is maintained. 13. As discussed above, there is ample evidence on the file that age of the claimant was 45 years at the time of accident. Thus it will be proper to apply reasonable multiplier in order to assess the compensation. As per multiplier contained in the schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier 13 was applicable, but the Tribunal has applied only multiplier 10. The claimant has not questioned this nor has she filed the cross objection. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to apply only the multiplier of 10. 14. Admittedly, the claimant was admitted in different Hospitals and has undergone treatment for a pretty long time. The Medical vouchers are also on the file. The Tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 70,000/- on account of medical expenditure and Rs. 10,000/- on account of future expenses. 15. Admittedly, the doctor has stated that injuries sustained by the claimant has rendered her permanently disabled and has caused face disfiguration, for which she has undergo mental pain and agony till she is alive, on account of this disfigurement. The Tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 1.50 lacs under the head disfigurement. 16. 10,000/- on account of future expenses. 15. Admittedly, the doctor has stated that injuries sustained by the claimant has rendered her permanently disabled and has caused face disfiguration, for which she has undergo mental pain and agony till she is alive, on account of this disfigurement. The Tribunal has rightly granted Rs. 1.50 lacs under the head disfigurement. 16. It is also proved that the claimant has lost two upper incisors (two teeth) due to the said vehicular accident and Rs. 30,000/- has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal for loss of teeth. 17. In the given circumstances, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 4.40 lacs as compensation in favour of the claimant and the same is upheld. 18. Now the second question which calls for determination is as to who is to be saddled with the liability. 19. Admittedly the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident and the driver was having a license to drive the heavy goods vehicle. It is nowhere pleaded or brought before the Tribunal that the driver was not having valid licence. When the driver is having a heavy goods vehicle, how can it be said that he is not capable to drive a light motor vehicle. It is also relevant to mention here that the insurer has failed to prove that the owner insured has committed any willful breach. Though the owner has also contested the claim petition all along and has specifically pleaded that the driver was having a valid license. In the given circumstances the Tribunal has rightly saddled the Insurer-appellant with the liability. 20. The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest from the date of institution of the claim petition on the amount of compensation which is not proper and as per recent apex court judgement 6%interest is to be awarded. Accordingly the claimant is also held entitled to the interest @ 6% from the date of claim petition till its final realization. 21. Accordingly it is held that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 4.40 lacs + 6% interest from the date of claim petition till its final realization. The impugned award is accordingly modified.