The Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Appeal are the outcome of Judgment and award dated 31st of October' 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, in claim petition titled Karam Singh Vs. International Institute of Driving and Maintenance & Ors., whereby and where-under compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,70,600/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of presentation of claim petition till its realization came to be passed in favour of the claimant-respondent and against the appellant-insurer, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. The Insurer-appellant in CIMA No. 87/2010 has disputed that the compensation awarded is at higher side, whereas the appellant-claimant in the cross appeal has disputed the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant. Thus, dispute in both the appeals i.e., appeal as well as cross appeal is whether the compensation awarded is just or otherwise? In order to determine the issue, it is necessary to give a flash back of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeals in hand, which can be summarized as under:- Claimant-respondent, namely Karam Singh, being the victim of the vehicular accident filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jammu for grant of compensation on the grounds that on 6th of March' 2008 Baljeet Arora, driver of Maruti Car was driving said Maruti Car bearing no. JK02B-1500 rashly and negligently at Circular Road, hit the claimant who was driving his motor cycle bearing no. JK02Q-41 near Baba Temple, sustained grievous injuries including fracture on his right leg and was shifted to Government Medical College, Jammu where he was operated upon and skin grafting was also done. Due to the grievous injuries claimant has been rendered unable to perform his job of Carpenter from which he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month has been deprived from earning from his profession, cannot stand for a long time and as such is not in a position to work. He has undergone through great pain and still is in pain, lost all amenities of life as well which he was otherwise enjoying before he met with the said accident. Virtually, the injuries have made his life permanently hell rather crippled. He has undergone through great pain and still is in pain, lost all amenities of life as well which he was otherwise enjoying before he met with the said accident. Virtually, the injuries have made his life permanently hell rather crippled. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not contested the claim petition before the Tribunal and it is only the Insurer who has resisted the claim of the petitioner. Following issues came to be framed:- 1. Whether an accident occurred at Circular road, near Muni Baba Temple, Jammu by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK02B-1500 being driven in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Karam Singh sustained grievious injuries.? OPP 2. If Issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective DL and thereby violating the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3 Petitioner, besides appearing himself in the witness box, examined PW Balbir Singh and Dr.I.K.Wangnoo. Insurer despite availing sufficient opportunities has failed to lead any evidence, which was accordingly, closed. Thus, evidence of the claimant has remained un-rebutted. It is profitable to give a brief resume of the evidence of the claimant-respondent no.1 in order to arrive at just conclusion, whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal are legally sound. Claimant-Karam Singh as well as other witnesses have specifically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Baljeet Singh Arora was driving the vehicle Maruti Car bearing No. JK02B-1500 in a rash and negligent manner on 6th of March' 2006 and hit the motor cycle which was being driven by the claimant, who sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Government Medical College, Jammu where he remained admitted up to 8th of April' 2006 and was operated from the leg. He was again operated upon and rod was engrafted in his leg on 11th of September' 2006 and skin grafting was done. He was again admitted in the hospital from 11th of September' 2006 to 21st of September' 2006 and bone grafting was done. He was taken to Amritsar and remained admitted up to 27th of June 2007. He has spent Rs. 1.75 Lacs on his treatment. He was again admitted in the hospital from 11th of September' 2006 to 21st of September' 2006 and bone grafting was done. He was taken to Amritsar and remained admitted up to 27th of June 2007. He has spent Rs. 1.75 Lacs on his treatment. Claimant has also placed on record the bills which do disclose as to how much amount he has spent on his treatment. Dr. I.K.Wangnoo who is an expert has deposed that he has examined the claimant as a case of Road Traffic Accident (for short R.T.A). Claimant has suffered 20% disablement. He has proved the medical certificate and has deposed that the claimant is not in a position to perform his job of Carpenter. Since the appellant-insurer has failed to produce even single witness, the evidence of the claimant has remained un-rebutted. Issue wise findings:- ISSUE No.1 All the witnesses have deposed that Baljeet Singh Arora, while driving the Maruti Car-offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 6th of March' 2006 hit the claimant, who sustained grievous injuries and became permanently disabled. He has proved that the driver of the offending vehicle while driving the Maruti Car rashly and negligently, hit the claimant's motor cycle being driven by him due to which he sustained grievous injuries and has rendered him permanently disabled that has effected his earning capacity. There is no evidence in rebuttal, thus the evidence of claimant has remained un-rebutted. The findings returned by the Tribunal with respect to Issue no.1 are upheld. Before leaping forward, I deem it proper to decide Issue no.3 the onus which was upon Insurer, but it has failed to prove the same for simple reason that it has not led any evidence to this effect. Thus, findings returned by the Tribunal vis-à-vis Issue no.3 are upheld. ISSUE No. 2: Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer only argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is devoid of any force for the following reasons:- Admittedly, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and suffered 20% permanent disability and is not in a position to perform his job of Carpenter, which he was effectively doing before he met with the said accident. He was earning Rs. 10,000 per month from his job of Carpenter. He was earning Rs. 10,000 per month from his job of Carpenter. After the accident, he remained in the hospital, underwent surgeries, skin grafting, bone grafting and rod was inserted in his leg .He has undergone operation twice and has also remained admitted in the hospital at Amritsar for treatment. The Tribunal has taken his income as Rs. 10,000/- per month but while exercising guess work has held that claimant has suffered 20% disability and as such he is not in a position to perform his work as a Carpenter which he was otherwise doing effectively before he met with the accident and sustained grievous injuries, which has effected his earning as well as working capacity as due to injuries sustained by him, he is no more in position to stand for long time. In the given circumstances, the Tribunal by guess work has held that the claimant has lost earning capacity to the tune of Rs. 1800 p.m i.e., 21,660/- per annum. Admittedly, the age of the claimant was 35 years at the time of accident and multiplier of 16 came to be applied while going through the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. Keeping in view the age of the claimant and the fact that that evidence has remained un-rebutted, multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate and came to be rightly applied. Claimant has placed on record the bills amounting to Rs. 1,70,443/- which he has spent for purchasing medicines and also as transportation charges. The Tribunal has, in lump sum, awarded Rs. 1.25 Lacs under the Head medical expenses including transport charges, which appears to be the just and appropriate. Admittedly, the claimant has undergone pain right from the date of accident and has remained admitted in various hospitals and is still suffering pain, thus the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the Head of Pain and Sufferings. Admittedly, the petitioner-claimant, due to injuries sustained in the accident, is deprived of all amenities of life because he cannot enjoy the life in the way he was enjoying before he met with the accident. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the Head Loss of Amenities of life is not excessive. Admittedly, the petitioner-claimant, due to injuries sustained in the accident, is deprived of all amenities of life because he cannot enjoy the life in the way he was enjoying before he met with the accident. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the Head Loss of Amenities of life is not excessive. In the given circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive, but it can be safely held that it is just and appropriate award and the appeal as such does not warrant any interference. The Cross Appeal also merits to be dismissed for the simple reason that the award amount is just and proper and it cannot be said that it is inadequate. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, both appeal as well as cross appeal, are dismissed.