JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. CMP No. 432 of 2012 1. In terms of the instant application, applicant/insurer/respondent before the Tribunal, seeks liberty to place on record evidence to prove that driving licence held by the driver, at the time of occurrence of the accident, was fake. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that application only merits rejection. 2. Accident took place on 31.1.2009. Claim petition instituted on 20.3.2009 was decided on 16.9.2011. The instant appeal was filed on 21.6.2012. At no point in time, prior to the filing of the instant application, which was so done on 21.6.2012, appellant took any plea of fake licence. The document now sought to be placed on record is dated 16.12.2011. There is no justification at all for not filing it alongwith the petition. There is inordinate delay which remains unexplained. Also record reveals the owner to have discharged the onus of prima facie, having verified the genuineness of the licence in question. Hence, present application is rejected. FAO No. 240 of 2012 3. Vide impugned award dated 16.9.2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Solan, District Solan, H.P., camp at Nalagarh, in MACT Petition No. 11-NL/2 of 2009, titled as Amar Nath vs. Prem Kaur & others, claimant Sh. Amar Nath stands awarded a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- including interim compensation, if any, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. 4. Record reveals that in an accident which took place on 31.1.2009, Amar Nath (PW-2) received injuries. He sustained permanent disability to the extent of 10% in his right leg which is evident from certificates (Ext. PW-3/A & Ext. PW-3/B). Medical record stands proved to that effect. 5. The fact that vehicle bearing registration number HP-12-3041 was being driven by respondent Rajinder Kumar, at the time of occurrence of accident cannot be disputed. F.I.R. No. 31/2009, dated 31.1.2009 (Ext. PW-1/A), registered at Police Station Nalagarh stands proved. The question of negligence of driver also stands proved by the claimant through his testimony (PW-2) as also Sh. Dharam Pal (PW-4) who witnessed the accident. In one voice, in their unsheltered testimonies, negligence of the driver stands proved. Accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of Rajinder Kumar. Vehicle is owned by Prem Kaur who proved that vehicle was duly insured. Dharam Pal (PW-4) who witnessed the accident. In one voice, in their unsheltered testimonies, negligence of the driver stands proved. Accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of Rajinder Kumar. Vehicle is owned by Prem Kaur who proved that vehicle was duly insured. Findings of the Tribunal, holding the insurer responsible to pay the amount of compensation are thus in order. 6. Claimant was 45 years of age at the time of accident. He sustained permanent disability to the extent of 10%. His loss of income, for the purposes of determining compensation is taken to be Rs. 4800/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 15, compensation determined for loss of income is thus Rs. 72,000/-. Further Rs. 25,000/- stands awarded to the claimant towards pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of medical reimbursement so incurred by him. In my considered view, amount of compensation so awarded in terms of the impugned award cannot be said to be higher. The same is within the settled parameters of law and as such does not require any interference. The award cannot be said to be perverse, illegal, erroneous or contrary to the settled principles of law. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.