1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.04.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, in case titled Tousif Ahmad Chopan v. The New India Assurance Co., in file No.40/2006, whereby an amount of Rs.4,13,887/- with 6% interest from the date of institution of petition till final realization came to be awarded in favour of claimant-respondent no. 3 and against the appellant-insurer (for short, the impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts 2. On 21.06.2005 at 10:30 AM when claimant-respondent no. 1 was on his way to school was hit by a bus bearing registration no-3327/JKE at Waripora Safapora, which was coming from Srinagar to Bandipora, being driven by its driver, respondent no. 1 herein, as a result of which claimant-respondent no.3 received grievous injuries, was hospitalized and became permanently disabled. FIR No. 137/2005 came to be registered. 3. Claimant-respondent no.3 herein claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.57,30,927/- as per the break-up given in the claim petition. 4. Appellant-insurer appeared, but the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle, respondents 1 & 2 herein, had chosen to remain absent and, accordingly, exparte proceedings were drawn against them. 5. Appellant-insurer resisted the petition by the medium of objections and following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether on 21.06.2006 Zahoor Ahmad Dar respondent no. 2 was plying offending bus bearing registration no.JKE-3327 rashly and negligently as a result of which at Waripora it hit the petitioner who sustained multiple grievous injuries rendering him permanently disabled? OPP 2. Whether the offending vehicle had no insurance cover from respondent No.1 and therefore comp any is under no obligation to indemnify the insured? OPR-1 3. Whether in alternative the driver/respondent no.2 of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle and the vehicle was without valid R/P and other vehicular documents on the date of accident so no liability can be saddled on the company because the insured has willfully breached policy stipulations? OPR-1. 4. In case issue no. 1 is proved in negative whether no accident has been caused due to the negligence of respondent no.2 and as such the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed? OPR-2 5. In case issue no. OPR-1. 4. In case issue no. 1 is proved in negative whether no accident has been caused due to the negligence of respondent no.2 and as such the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed? OPR-2 5. In case issue no. 1 is proved in negative whether the petitioner all of a sudden came on the centre of the road but respondent no.2 taking due care and caution stopped the vehicle and no accident was caused on spot and as such the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed? OPR-2 6. In case issue no.2 is proved in negative whether the offending vehicle had full insurance cover from respondent no. 1 under policy no.32-25008 valid on the date of accident? OPR-2 7. In case issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP 8. Relief. 6. On 05.03.2008 two more following issues came to be framed. 6A. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and as such the petition is not maintainable and laible to be dismissed? OPR-3 6B. Whether after full and complete satisfaction regarding the validity of DL respondent no.2 was allowed to ply the offending vehicle and he has the authority to drive the same? If yes, what is its effect on the merits of the claim petition. OPR-3 7. Claimant-respondent no.3 examined Gh. Rasool Chopan, Ab. Rahim Wagay, Mohd. Ibrahim Bhat, Irshad Ahmadl Bhat, Gh. Mohd. Chopan and Dr. Mohd. Muzaffer, Orthopedician as witnesses in support of his claim. Claimant-respondent no. 1 also appeared in the witness box. He also placed on record the relevant documents including the photostat copies of charge sheet, injury memo, seizure memo and certified copy of the judgment dated 03.10.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sumbal, whereby the driver-respondent no. 1 came to be convicted. 8. Appellant-insurer has failed to lead any evidence, thus the evidence led by claimant-respondent no.3 has remained unrebutted. 9. Tribunal after examining the record, scanning of evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned award. Issue no. 1 10. Admittedly, driver-respondent no. 1 came to be convicted. 8. Appellant-insurer has failed to lead any evidence, thus the evidence led by claimant-respondent no.3 has remained unrebutted. 9. Tribunal after examining the record, scanning of evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned award. Issue no. 1 10. Admittedly, driver-respondent no. 1 came to be convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 03.10.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sumbal, which itself is indicative of the fact that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle, as a result of which claimant-respondent no.3 sustained injuries, which rendered him permanent disabled. Thus, the finding returned on issue no. 1 is upheld. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 11. Appellant-insurer had to discharge onus. Since it failed to lead evidence, thus both the issues rightly came to be decided in favour of claimant-respondent no.3 and against the appellant-insurer. Further, I have gone through the driving license, which do disclose that the driver was competent to drive the passenger vehicle. Issue Nos. 4, 5 & 6 12. Respondent no. 1-driver of the offending vehicle had to lead evidence. He failed to do so. He also stands convicted. These issues are covered by the finding returned on issue no. 1, which is against him, therefore, the findings returned on these issues are also upheld. Issue Nos. 6A & 6B 13. Appellant-insurer as well as driver and owner had to discharge onus, which they failed to do so. Therefore, both the issues rightly came to be decided in favour of appellant. 14. While dictating judgment in the open Court, Mr. Dar, learned counsel for appellant, made a statement that the compensation is at higher side. 15. There is ample evidence on the file that claimant-respondent no. 1 was admitted in Bone & Joint Hospital, Barzulla and in SKIMS, Soura. He was not in a position to attend his school for a pretty long time and failed to appear in the examination in the year 2005. During all this period he went through mental agony and pain. To meet the medical expenses of claimant-respondent no.3, his father also sold one kanal of land for the treatment of claimant. The doctor has specifically deposed that the permanently disability suffered by the claimant is to the extent of 75%. 16. During all this period he went through mental agony and pain. To meet the medical expenses of claimant-respondent no.3, his father also sold one kanal of land for the treatment of claimant. The doctor has specifically deposed that the permanently disability suffered by the claimant is to the extent of 75%. 16. The Tribunal after taking in view the evidence led by the parties has rightly awarded Rs.23,887/- on account of expenses incurred on medical treatment; Rs. 10,000/- on account of transportation charges; Rs.5000/- for special diet; Rs.2,70,000/- on account of loss of future earnings; Rs. 10,000/- on account of future medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs.25000/- on account of loss of amenities of life. 17. Tribunal has fallen in error while awarding Rs.50,000/- on the ground that claimant-respondent no. 1 may not find a spouse of his choice when he would reach the age of marriage. 18. It is also provided that the claimant-respondent no.3 is not entitled to any penal interest. 19. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,63,887/- (23,887 + 10,000 + 5000 + 2,70,000 + 10,000 + 20,000 + 25000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. 20. Registry is directed to release rest of the awarded amount in favour of claimant-respondent no. 3 after proper verification and identification. Court fees to be first charged. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of appellant-insurer by way of account payee's cheque. 21. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of along with all CMPs.