JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner-Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company" for convenience sake) has filed this petition against the award dated 9.6.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division Chamba in MAC Petition No. 69 of 2009. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-claimant, Sh. Ramesh Chand (hereinafter referred to as "claimant" for convenience sake) was walking on foot on 1.2.2008 and was proceeding from the place of his work near Power House site at Jarangla. When he reached near village Rajera at about 11.45 A.M., a tipper bearing registration No. HP-73-0567 came from Bharmaur side. It was driven by respondent No. 3 Trilok Singh in a rash and negligent manner. The tipper struck against the claimant and it went out of the road. The vehicle rolled down upto a distance of 150 meters. The claimant sustained multiple injuries and fractures. According to him, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Trilok Singh. He was taken to Regional Hospital, Chamba. Thereafter, he was treated at Kalyani Hospital, Pathankot. He remained under treatment for about eight months. He has incurred expenditure of Rs. three lakhs on his treatment. F.I.R. No. 23/2008 dated 1.2.2008 was also registered at Police Station, Sadar, Chamba. According to him, he was earning Rs. 25,000 per month, being a Government Contractor. He has suffered 40% permanent disability. He became crippled. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba seeking compensation of Rs. 18,85,000 with interest and costs. 2. Insurance Company has taken preliminary objection. According to Insurance Company, the vehicle was not having valid insurance cover. The driver was not holding valid driving licence. The vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The owner and driver, namely, Mani Mahesh Cooperative Transport Society Limited and Trilok Singh also filed replies. It is admitted by them that on 1.2.2008, claimant was walking on foot. He was coming from the place of his duty. The vehicle came from Bharmaur side. The brakes of the offending vehicle failed due to which the accident took place. Moreover, the accident has taken place due to mechanical failure. It was also submitted that the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. The driver was in possession of valid driving licence. 3. The vehicle came from Bharmaur side. The brakes of the offending vehicle failed due to which the accident took place. Moreover, the accident has taken place due to mechanical failure. It was also submitted that the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. The driver was in possession of valid driving licence. 3. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of Trilok Singh. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,93,400/ - to the claimant. Hence, the present petition against the award. 4. Mr. Jagdish Thakur has strenuously argued that the claimant has failed to prove his income. He then argued that the multiplier applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is on the higher side. He also argued that no medical bills have been proved by the claimant. He lastly contended that no bills of transportation have been proved by the claimant. According to him, the compensation awarded to the claimant is excessive. 5. Mr. Bimal Gupta appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has supported the award. Mr. Abhinay Sharma appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 has argued that the vehicle was duly insured and the driver was holding valid driving licence. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleading carefully. 7. The accident has taken place on 1.2.2008. F.I.R. No. 23 of 2008 was also lodged at Police Station, Chamba. The same has been proved by PW-2 MHC Madan Singh. Claimant has led his evidence by filing his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has stated that the vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver. Though the owner and driver have stated that the accident has taken place due to failure of brakes, however, no evidence has been led in this behalf by producing technical expert. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Trilok Singh. 8. Now, the Court will advert to whether the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is excessive. Age of the claimant is 51 years. According to the averments contained in the petition, he is Government Contractor and he was earning Rs. 25,000/-. 8. Now, the Court will advert to whether the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is excessive. Age of the claimant is 51 years. According to the averments contained in the petition, he is Government Contractor and he was earning Rs. 25,000/-. He remained hospitalized in Regional Hospital, Chamba and thereafter he was admitted in Kalyani Hospital, Pathankot. He has suffered head injury, fractures of left arm, left leg and left ribs, as per the contents of the petition. He has suffered 40% permanent disability. According to the affidavit filed by him, he has incurred total expenditure of Rs. three lakhs on his treatment. He was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month as per the averments contained in the affidavit. He has become dependent upon others for his daily routine activities. He requires services of an attendant all the time. He has suffered 40% disability. He was unable to sit and walk. He was not in a position to do any manual work. He has suffered physical, mental, pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss due to the accident. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was Government Contractor since 1988 and he has denied the suggestion that he was not earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. 9. PW-3 Suresh Kumar, Senior Assistant has produced the record. According to him, the claimant was registered as 'D' class Contractor vide registration certificates Ex. PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. Initially, he could not tell as to how many works were executed by the claimant, however, later on stated that since 2001 to 2005 he has undertaken 2-3 works. 10. The disability of the claimant has been proved by PW-4 Dr. Bharat Bhushan Katoch. He has proved Ex.PW-4/A. Claimant has suffered 40% permanent disability. 11. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of income tax returns furnished by the claimant Ex.PC, PD and PE came to the conclusion that his income was Rs. 20,000/- per month. The disability of the claimant has been assessed at 40%. However, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that his capability was reduced by 50%. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed the net income of the claimant Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. Thereafter, he has applied multiplier of 11 and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,20,000/-. The claimant has not led tangible evidence on record to establish that his income was Rs. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed the net income of the claimant Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. Thereafter, he has applied multiplier of 11 and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,20,000/-. The claimant has not led tangible evidence on record to establish that his income was Rs. 20,000/- per month. How much income tax he was paying has not been discussed at all by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. There are no details of the works executed by the claimant as 'D' class Contractor. PW-3 Suresh Kumar has only referred to that he was registered as Government Contractor vide registration certificates Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. It was necessary for the claimant to substantiate that his income was Rs. 20,000/- per month. How the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant to be Rs. 20,000/- is not understandable. It is true that it is the duty of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to award just and fair compensation and some guess work is permissible, however, there has to be tangible evidence on record to establish the income. The Court is of the considered view that the income assessed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, i.e. Rs. 20,000/- is on the higher side. The same could not be more than Rs. 15,000/- and on account of 40% permanent disability, the same would be reduced by Rs. 6,000/ -. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has also erred in law by not co-relating the injury suffered by the claimant vis-a-vis his job requirement. Though the permanent disability suffered by the claimant is 40%, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has made it 50%. How the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has come to this figure is not understandable. However, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered view that 40% permanent disability suffered by the claimant has reduced the work capability of the claimant as Contractor. He is 'D' class contractor as per Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. The age of the claimant is 51 years. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11. Though the multiplier is slightly on the higher side but this Court will not interfere with the same as there is no retirement age as far as claimant is concerned coupled with the fact that the life expectancy has increased in the recent years. 12. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11. Though the multiplier is slightly on the higher side but this Court will not interfere with the same as there is no retirement age as far as claimant is concerned coupled with the fact that the life expectancy has increased in the recent years. 12. The net loss to the income, on the basis of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, of the claimant would be Rs. 6,000/- per month and Rs. 72,000/- per annum. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 11 can be applied in this case. Thus, the total amount of compensation will be Rs. 72,000 x 11 = Rs. 7,92,000/-. The claimant has only produced the certificate issued by the Kalyani Hospital, Pathankot, according to which he has incurred Rs. 1,38,400/-. The bill produced by the claimant has not been proved by any functionary of the Kalyani Hospital. The Court is of the view that the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses since he remained admitted in Regional Hospital, Chamba and thereafter in Kalyani Hospital, Pathankot. The amount of Rs. one lakh awarded towards pain, suffering and inconvenience is on the higher side. The claimant is held entitled to Rs. 25,000/- under these heads. He has not produced any bills vouchers etc. that he has undertaken journey and incurred expenditure of Rs. 25,000/ - towards transportation. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is appropriate on this count. Claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to engaging services of attendant. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- compensation for the attendant. The same is not admissible to the claimant since he has not led any evidence to prove this head. Thus, the total compensation to which the claimant is entitled under different heads is: (i) Rs. 7,92,000/- on account of loss of income (ii) Rs. 50,000/- on account of medical expenses (iii) Rs. 25,000/- on account of pain and suffering (iv) Rs. 10,000/- on account of transportation charges Total = Rs. 8,77,000/- 13. The claimant is held entitled to interest @ 6% from the date of filing of petition. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. The claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of pain and suffering (iv) Rs. 10,000/- on account of transportation charges Total = Rs. 8,77,000/- 13. The claimant is held entitled to interest @ 6% from the date of filing of petition. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. The claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,77,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.