JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge 1. Appeals titled above are directed against common judgment and Award dated 30.10.2008 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Srinagar whereby sixteen claim petitions came to be determined, hereinafter for short as impugned award. 2. The grievance of the victim-claimants in some of the appeals is that compensation is not adequate and in some of the appeals is that the claim petitions came to be dismissed without any justification. 3. Since the appeals are registered against a common-impugned judgment, therefore, this order will govern all. BRIEF FACTS: 4. In all the claim petitions which have given rise to these appeals, it is averred that Fayaz Ahmad driver has driven passenger bus bearing No. JKC-5258 rashly and negligently on 3rd of November, 2001 at Saderkote Payeen-Srinagar-Bandipora road and caused accident and claimants sustained injuries and are entitled to compensation on the grounds taken in the claim petition. Following issues came to be framed: 1) Whether on 03.11.2001 Fayaz Ahmad was plying passenger Bus No. JKC/5258 so rashly and negligently that at Suderkot while negotiating a curve he lost control of the vehicle as result of which it fell into a deep gorge due to which some passengers lost their lives and petitioner along with others sustained severe bodily injuries which rendered him/ her permanently disabled? (OPP) 2) Whether Mohammad Abdullah has already sold the offending vehicle to one Abdul Majid Dar respondent, so he is not any way to be saddled with any kind of liability? (OPR-2) 3) Whether due to non joinder of necessary parties the claim petition is not maintainable? (OPR-2) 4) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license on the date of occurrence and as such the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability?(OPR-3) 5) Whether the insured has also committed breach of other policy conditions as a result of which the insurer is not bound to indemnify the insured? (OPR-3) 6) Whether the vehicle was not insured with the respondent Insurance company at the time of accident and as such insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured and to compensate the petitioner? (OPR-3) 7) Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present claim petition? (OPR-3) 6) Whether the vehicle was not insured with the respondent Insurance company at the time of accident and as such insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured and to compensate the petitioner? (OPR-3) 7) Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present claim petition? (OPR-3) 8) In case the issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? (OPP) 9) Relief. 5. Heard. I am of the considered view that all these appeals merit to be dismissed for the following reasons: 6. CIMA No. 01/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 57/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 16, 600/- in favour of the claimants. Feeling aggrieved the claimants have questioned the same for being inadequate. It is worthwhile to mention herein that claimant/ appellant has not appeared in the witness box and has not supported his case. Virtually there is no sufficient evidence to held that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 16,600/-. Keeping in view the discussion made by the Tribunal, the reasons setout and the fact that the insurer has not questioned it, I deem it proper not to interfere with the impugned Award, accordingly appeal is dismissed. 7. CIMA No. 02/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 25/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. There is nothing on the file suggesting the fact that the claimant is entitled to more than the awarded amount. Claimant/ appellant has failed to prove the enormity of loss that he has suffered and to what amount of compensation he is entitled to. However, the Tribunal after making a guess work has awarded Rs. 15,000/- which appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed. 8. CIMA No. 03/2009 is an offshoot of a claim petition No. 60/2002. Claimant has averred that he has sustained injuries and rendered disabled because of the vehicular accident in question. To prove his claim he has also led evidence. However, there is not even an iota of evidence on the file which can be made basis for holding that the claimant/ appellant has sustained any injury and that injury has rendered him disabled. To prove his claim he has also led evidence. However, there is not even an iota of evidence on the file which can be made basis for holding that the claimant/ appellant has sustained any injury and that injury has rendered him disabled. Even there is nothing to the extent that he has suffered any injury, simple or grievous. It is worthwhile to mention herein that Investigating Officer Ghulam Mohammad Lone while deposing has stated that the petitioner does not figure in the list of injured and was not traveling in the said vehicle. Thus the claim petition is virtually outcome of fraud and rightly came to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. CIMA No. 04/2009 is result of a claim petition No. 23/2002. The appellant-claimant has averred in the claim petition that he was traveling in the offending vehicle and is a victim of the accident. The I.O. has stated that he was not traveling in the said vehicle and was not among the figuring in the list of injured persons. Claimant/appellant has failed to prove that he was traveling in the said vehicle, sustained injuries and is entitled to any compensation. Thus, impugned Award needs no interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. CIMA No. 05/2009 is development of a claim petition No. 82/2002. Claimant-appellant has averred that she received multiple bruises, brain stem injury and OIC plate was fixed on her right leg. She has not appeared in the witness box nor examined any witness except Investigating Officer Ghulam Mohammad who is stated that the petitioner Rafiqa was not figuring in the list of injured persons and thereby has not supported the petitioner's case. The petitioner has not even otherwise proved her case. The Claim petition has therefore rightly been dismissed and needs no interference. 11. Claim petition No. 26/2002 has given birth to CIMA No. 06/2009, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. There is nothing on record which can be made basis for holding that claimant-appellant has sustained injuries because of the said accident. The Doctor has stated that the said injuries can be carried by birth. Petitioner has failed to substantiate that the injury which she was carrying was outcome of a vehicular accident in question. Petitioner has failed to prove her case. The Doctor has stated that the said injuries can be carried by birth. Petitioner has failed to substantiate that the injury which she was carrying was outcome of a vehicular accident in question. Petitioner has failed to prove her case. However, the Tribunal after taking into account that she has sustained injuries and was in Hospital for a few days has granted Rs. 25,000/- for trauma, pain and agony for being admitted in hospital. Accordingly this appeal is also dismissed. 12. CIMA No. 07/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 24/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. Appellant has examined Ghulam Mohammad Lone, Investigating Officer in support of his case who stated that appellant was traveling in the offending vehicle. But appellant has failed to prove whether she has sustained such injuries which permanently disabled her and was entitled to compensation more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce relevant Para of the impugned Award herein: Now I have to assess whether the petitioner has remained admitted for 30 days in Soura Medical Institute as claimed by him. So far as this assertion is concerned, it is not proved by the petitioner by producing any admission record before this Tribunal. The petitioner has not sought a permanent disability certificate from the concerned authorities. The petitioner has not even examined any of his family members or co-passengers who could have corroborated his statement vis-i-vis his disability to use his arm. Even the X-rays of the alleged broken shoulder has not been placed on record. The petitioner may have received some superfluous injury which may had been corrected in the OPD on 5th of November, 2001 in Govt. Hospital for Bone & Joint, Barzulla. Since the petitioner has undergone a trauma because of the accident in question, he being a young man of mid 20's must have got disturbed and caused him a lot of mental agony and pain. Rs. 15,000/- if awarded on account of pain and agony in favour of petitioner, it will be just and proper. 13. CIMA No. 08/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 56/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,600/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. Rs. 15,000/- if awarded on account of pain and agony in favour of petitioner, it will be just and proper. 13. CIMA No. 08/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 56/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,600/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. The petitioner had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lacs under the head disfigurement of head and nose and had also claimed compensation for medical expenses and pain and agony and for loss of income. Petitioner has failed to prove the factum of disfigurement of head and nose. Petitioner has also failed to place any document on record in order to prove that he has spent huge amount under the head medical expenses. There is nothing on the file which can be made basis for holding that injury has affected his earning capacity. The Tribunal after taking into account the material on record has held that the accident has not affected the earning capacity of the petitioner but granted Rs. 1600/- in view of the fact that petitioner was bed ridden for eight and holding that he was earning Rs. 200/-per day. Tribunal also awarded Rs. 25,000/- under the head boarding and lodging and Rs. 5,000/- for having been incurred on medicines. This exercise has been done by the Tribunal by guess work. However, the same has not been questioned by the insurer, therefore, it is upheld. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. CIMA No. 09/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 102/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. Claimant-appellant has averred that she has sustained injuries which have affected his earning capacity being a carpet weaver. He has not appeared before the Medical Board nor produced any medical certificate in order to indicate that the injury which he has sustained has affected his earning capacity. The Tribunal has gone through the criminal case which was pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Sumbal and it is recorded therein that he has sustained simple injuries and no disability certificate was issued or recorded in the medical records. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that he has sustained disability. The Tribunal after making guess work awarded Rs. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that he has sustained disability. The Tribunal after making guess work awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head pain and suffering which seems to be quite reasonable and needs no interference. Thus appeal is dismissed. 15. CIMA No. 10/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 58/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 28,000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. Claimant has averred that he has suffered injury which has affected his earning capacity and also had to engage two attendants when he was admitted in hospital and had to spent a huge amount on boarding and lodging. Petitioner has not led any evidence in order to prove that he has utilized the services of two attendants and has paid the remunerations. He has also not brought the medical evidence on record to prove that he has suffered disability and that disability has affected his earning capacity. Doctor examined in the case has deposed that disability certificate indicates that the said injury can be carried by birth also. Tribunal after making guess work awarded Rs. 28,000/- which is not questioned by the insurer and is reluctantly upheld. Appeal is dismissed as such. 16. CIMA No. 11/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 71/2002 which came to bedismissed for want of evidence. Claimant has failed to prove his case. In thegiven circumstances, impugned award needs no interference and is upheld.Appeal is dismissed. 17. CIMA No. 12/2009 is out come of a claim petition No. 59/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being in adequate. Claimant has not led any evidence to prove that he is entitled to the compensation claimed. However,claimant has appeared in the witness box and it stands proved that he has sustained injuries because of the said accident which is corroborated by theI nvestigating Officer Ghulam Mohammad Lone. Tribunal after making guess work awarded Rs. 14,000/- which seems to be just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is nothing on the file to shake the credibility of the Award. Keeping in view the record and the evidence led by the claimant, the compensation awarded is a just compensation and needs no interference. Appeal is as such, dismissed. 18. 14,000/- which seems to be just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is nothing on the file to shake the credibility of the Award. Keeping in view the record and the evidence led by the claimant, the compensation awarded is a just compensation and needs no interference. Appeal is as such, dismissed. 18. CIMA No. 13/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 70/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of theclaimants which is appealed against being inadequate. It is apt to reproduce the last two paragraphs of the impugned award herein:- Though there is no evidence on the file that the petitioner suffered any permanent disability but it is also a fact that she got injured when the offending vehicle in which she was traveling from Srinagar to Bandipora along with her husband and child met with an accident at Saderkote Payeen. The petitioner must have undergone a lot of pain and agony and there is every likelihood that she may had received some injuries in the said accident. This aspect of the case has been corroborated by the IO who has stated that in fact Mst. Haleema had received injuries in the said accident. Since no permanent disability and the disability of the petitioner to do the household chores and to knit sweaters, has been proved, as such, she has not suffered any loss of income. The petitioner must have incurred some amount on her medicines as she had received some injuries in the said accident as is evident from the criminal record as well. Rs. 10,000/- if awarded on account of medical expenses and undergoing trauma and pain due to the said accident, it will be just and proper. 19. In the given circumstances, no interference is warranted. The impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 20. CIMA No. 14/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 61/2002. Claimant has failed to prove that she was traveling in the offending vehicle and sustained injuries. Even she has not chosen to appear as witness on her own. Thus claim petition rightly came to be dismissed. 21. CIMA No. 15/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 69/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. Even she has not chosen to appear as witness on her own. Thus claim petition rightly came to be dismissed. 21. CIMA No. 15/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 69/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. The claimant has failed to prove that he is entitled to compensation claimed by him as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. However, the Tribunal has by guess work granted lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the claimants which has not been questioned by the insurer and the same is upheld. Appeal is dismissed. 22. CIMA No. 16/2009 is outcome of a claim petition No. 22/2002, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the claimants which is appealed against being inadequate. Appellant-claimant has averred that she is a victim of said vehicular accident and was admitted in SKISM and Bone & Joint Hospital and she has sustained injuries which had rendered her disable but she has not proved the factum of disability and the fact that she was admitted in hospital for two months. There is nothing on the file which would oblige to hold that the injuries sustained by her had affected her earning capacity. The Tribunal after making guess work awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation which is not been questioned by the insurer, thus needs no interference. Appeal, as such, is dismissed. 23. Having glance to the above discussion, I am of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while passing impugned award, which is upheld. All the appeals are dismissed along with connected CMPs.