JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the claimant injured, stated at the Bar that the claimant-injured being a rustic villager was not in a position to record the correct number of the offending vehicle and inadvertently, mistake has crept in while recording the number of the offending vehicle as HR-38-1204 and prayed that the said mistake cannot take away settings of law and cannot be made the basis to throw the claimant-injured out of the Court. He further argued that the registration number of the offending vehicle is HR-38 G-1204, as held by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) and prayed for permission to grant leave to rectify the said mistake by table amendment. 2. Heard. Considered. 3. The procedural wrangles & tangles and mystic maybes cannot come in the way of granting compensation to the victims, who were the bread earner of the family and are on streets and in order to save them from starvation and other social evils. 4. Keeping in view the aim and object of granting the compensation to the victims of the motor vehicular accidents read with the fact that granting of compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims, I deem it proper to allow the claimant-injured to make necessary correction by allowing table amendment. 5. Having said so, the registration number of the offending vehicle-tempo be read as HR-38 G-1204. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. He has made this argument on the ground that the claimant has recorded the registration number of the offending vehicle as HR-38-1204. The argument is devoid of any force as the Tribunal has discussed this issue in detail in paras 9, 10 and 15 of the impugned award. 7. I have examined the record. It is pertinent to record herein that the owner-insured and the insurer-appellant have not led any evidence in rebuttal, thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained unrebutted. 8. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the offending vehicle was HR-38 G-1204 and rightly saddled the appellant insurer with liability. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer also argued that the amount awarded is excessive. 8. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the offending vehicle was HR-38 G-1204 and rightly saddled the appellant insurer with liability. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer also argued that the amount awarded is excessive. Admittedly, the claimant-injured has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% and has examined the Doctors, namely Shri G.D. Khullar as PW-7 and Dr. Ravjit Singh as PW-9, who have given details how the claimant-injured has suffered, how he has become permanent disabled forever and virtually has lost every enjoyment of life. Having said so, the amount awarded is meager, cannot be said to be excessive. 10. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 11. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque. 12. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.