JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, a public sector undertaking has filed the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), assailing the award dated 28.2.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, H.P., in MACT Petition No. 55-S/2 of 2006, titled as Vikrim vs. HRTC & others. In terms of the impugned award, claimant-petitioner, who sustained permanent disability to the extent of 45% of the lower limb, stands awarded compensation as under:- “(i) Expenses on medicines: Rs. 2,000/- (ii) Conveyance charges Rs. 3,500/- (iii) Attendance and special diet. Rs. 23,500/- (iv) Loss of studies and future amenities Rs. 30,000/- (v) Loss of future income Rs. 2,91,000/- (vi) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Total : Rs. 4,00,000/- Also on this amount, interest @ 9% per annum stands awarded from the date of filing of petition till actual payment. 2. The challenge to the award is on the ground that Tribunal erred in appreciating the material so placed by the parties and has thus committed grave irregularity in passing the impugned award. In effect it is argued that compensation awarded is on the higher side. 3. It is not in dispute that claim petition under Section 166 of the Act stands filed by the claimant/respondent herein. According to the claimant, on 3.4.2006 at about 1.20 p.m. bus No. HP 07 3723 driven by Sh. Jeet Ram (original respondent No. 3) in a rash and negligent manner hit him as a result of which he sustained injuries. He was admitted at the Indira Gandhi Medical College as an indoor patient for one week. As a result of the accident, he sustained permanent disability to the extent of 45%, of his left lower limb. 4. From the response so filed by the respondents-appellant, it is evident that factum of occurrence of accident is not disputed. In any case, F.I.R. No. 71 of 2006, dated 3.4.2006 (Ext. PW -3/A) stands proved on record by Constable Tek Chand (PW-3). The said fact also stands proved by petitioner (PW-7) as also his friend Sh. Deep Ram (PW-6), an eye witness. 5. That the bus was being driving in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into occurrence of accident, in my considered view, stands substantially proved by the claimant through his testimony (PW-7) as also testimony of an eye independent witness (PW-6). Deep Ram (PW-6), an eye witness. 5. That the bus was being driving in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into occurrence of accident, in my considered view, stands substantially proved by the claimant through his testimony (PW-7) as also testimony of an eye independent witness (PW-6). In one voice, both of them have deposed that bus was being driven by Jeet Ram in a rash and negligent manner and that too at a high speed, which in effect, was the cause of the accident. Defence of the driver that the place where bus was passing was crowded and accident occurred on account of claimant’s fault, in my considered view, has not been substantiated and proved on record, though Jeet Ram (RW1) driver of the bus and Mohan Lal (RW-2) have tried to substantiate the same. Their testimonies do not inspire confidence. In fact it stands admitted by these witnesses that the accident caused such anger that passers-by had to ask the driver to get down from the bus. In view of admission made by the driver that bus was passing through a congested area, it was expected of him to exercise more care and caution which, it be only observed, was not so done by him. Accident took place at a time when children were returning home from school and driver omitted to take due care and caution and exercise restraint as was so required from a diligent person, while driving a heavy vehicle through a congested area. As such, negligence of the driver stands proved on record. 6. The fact that the driver is an employee of original respondent-appellants herein is not in dispute. He was having a valid driving licence. 7. The fact that claimant remained admitted in the State hospital from 3.4.2006 to 14.4.2006, stands proved through the testimony of Dr. Kailash Chander (PW-2) as also discharge slip (Ext. PW-2/A). The fact that claimant sustained 45% permanent disability of the lower limb stands proved by Dr. Sachin Sood (PW-5) who issued and proved the disability certificate (Ext. PW-5/A). That claimant incurred the claimed expenditure for medical treatment is evident from bills (Ext. PW-4/1 to 4/8 and 4/26). Other expenses incurred also stands proved on record. 8. Claimant, at the time of occurrence of accident was aged 11 years. Sachin Sood (PW-5) who issued and proved the disability certificate (Ext. PW-5/A). That claimant incurred the claimed expenditure for medical treatment is evident from bills (Ext. PW-4/1 to 4/8 and 4/26). Other expenses incurred also stands proved on record. 8. Claimant, at the time of occurrence of accident was aged 11 years. For the purposes of awarding compensation, loss of income of the claimant has been taken to be only Rs.16,200/- per annum, on which multiplier of 18 has been rightly applied. 9. In my considered view, amount of compensation so awarded in terms of the impugned award cannot be said to be on the higher side. 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.