1. Respondent-1, Shashi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as claimant) sustained injuries resulting in permanent disablement in a road traffic accident involving the offending vehicle- a Matador bearing Registration No.2089-JK 02T. The accident occurred on 07.12.2003 in the morning at Sartingal when the driver of offending vehicle started the vehicle and dashed against another Matador standing in front of it. Resultantly, the claimant suffered serious injuries besides fracturing his legs. The accident is attributed to rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent-2 is the owner of offending vehicle which was insured with the appellant. The claimant, aged 19 years at the time of accident, claimed to be earning Rs.8,000/- per month as a Mason. The claimant was hospitalized and he had to incur expenditure on treatment besides suffering loss of income on account of permanent disability suffered by him which has been assessed at 20% of both lower limbs. 2. The claimant approached Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhaderwah (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) with claim of compensation to the tune of Rs.12.00 lacs. The driver of the offending vehicle stayed away from proceedings despite service of notice. He was set ex parte. The owner of offending vehicle pleaded that the complainant had suffered simple injuries and the accident had taken place due to mechanical defect in the offending vehicle. However, he did not deny the liability to pay compensation and pleaded that in view of offending vehicle being insured with the present appellant, the claim for compensation had to be satisfied by the insurer. The appellant contested the claim for compensation on the ground that the offending vehicle was being plied by an unauthorized person who was not holding a valid driving licence and the insurer was not liable to satisfy the claim for compensation. The parties joined the issues and on consideration of evidence adduced during enquiry, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.05.00 lacs as compensation to the claimant after holding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent-3 while under employment of respondent-2 and the offending vehicle being insured with the appellant, the appellant was liable to satisfy the award. 3. 3. The impugned award has been assailed by the appellant-insurer on the ground that compensation awarded is exorbitant, the tribunal has committed an error in calculating compensation and the compensation awarded under various heads, does not conform to the guidelines laid down in rulings and the compensation awarded does not commensurate with the disability suffered. The impugned award has also been assailed on the ground that the appellant could not be saddled with the liability to satisfy the award as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of accident. 4. Heard and considered. 5. In so far as issue of liability of appellant-insurer to indemnify the insured in regard to satisfaction of award is concerned, be it seen that the onus of proof of issue-5 framed by the tribunal in regard to plea of appellant that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver who not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident, was laid on the appellant-insurer but no evidence was adduced by the appellant-insurer to discharge its onus of proof. Thus, the plea taken by the appellant- insurer that the offending vehicle was being plied by an unauthorized person not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, remained unsubstantiated. Breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, found by the tribunal to be in force and subsisting, not having been established by the appellant as the ground taken for assailing the impugned award, does not survive and the same is rejected. 6. In so far as other grounds taken in the appeal are concerned, there appears to be substance in it. The tribunal appears to have erred in assessing the compensation. The evidence brought on record during enquiry establishes that the claimant was barely 19 years old at the time of accident. He claimed to be a Mason earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is in his testimony that he was a student and had failed twice in matriculation examination. His deposition does not describe as and when he acquired the skill of a Mason and since how long he had been working as such. He claimed to be a Mason earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is in his testimony that he was a student and had failed twice in matriculation examination. His deposition does not describe as and when he acquired the skill of a Mason and since how long he had been working as such. In view of his admission that he had been attending the School from 10 AM to 4 PM as a regular student, it is difficult to attach much importance to his claim of being a full time Mason deriving income as claimed by him. However, in view of the fact that the evidence tendered by the claimant stands un-rebutted and having regard for his age, brief period after studies in which he must have acquired the skill of a mason and lean period of work, it appears realistic to assess monthly income of claimant at Rs.4,500/-. It is true that in absence of documentary evidence to support the conclusion regarding assessment of income, it does involve some amount of conjecture to arrive at a definite conclusion but same is inevitable. Guess work to some extent does play a role though the same should not be too wild to be a substitute for the proof. Be that as it may, it sounds realistic to assess monthly income of claimant at Rs.4500/-. Medical evidence brought on record by claimant establishes that the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% of both lower limbs. Though such disability is not in relation to whole body but having regard to the age of claimant and stiffness of knees and ankles rendering him disabled to an extent to perform his duties as Mason It would be appropriate to assess loss of future earnings to the extent of permanent disability. Thus, loss of future earnings comes to Rs.900/- per month. The annual loss of earnings is accordingly calculated at Rs.10, 800/-. Appropriate multiplier to the age of claimant in terms of the landmark judgment rendered in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 (6) SCC) 121 , would be `16' . Loss of future income is accordingly, calculated at Rs.10, 800x16 = Rs.1, 72,800/-. The tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of pain and suffering. Same is maintained. Loss of future income is accordingly, calculated at Rs.10, 800x16 = Rs.1, 72,800/-. The tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of pain and suffering. Same is maintained. Medical expenses including future medical requirements assessed at Rs.50, 000/-, also does not appear to be excessive. The amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs has been assessed as compensation on account of inconvenience, hardship and discomfort. Same appears to be a bit on higher side. It is true that in cases of permanent disability, the compensation must be awarded at a sum which is commensurate with the sufferings of the injured. However, an amount of Rs.1.00 lac appears to be just compensation for loss of amenities. The following sums are accordingly assessed as just and fair compensation under various heads: 1. Loss of future income : Rs.1, 72,800/- 2. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 5,000/- 3. Medical expenditure : Rs. 50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life : Rs.1, 00,000/- Total: Rs.3, 27,800/- 7. The award passed by the Tribunal is accordingly, modified. The claimant is held entitled to total compensation of Rs.3, 27,800/-. He shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on compensation awarded under various heads other than under the head of "loss of future income". The award shall be satisfied by the appellant- insurer. 8. Registry to release the amount after deducting the sum already paid to claimant as interim compensation and the sums released earlier. Balance if any, be refunded to the appellant-insurer. 9. Appeal, alongwith connected CMA, is accordingly disposed of.