JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 05.03.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 47-MAC/2 of 2007, titled as Kishan Singh versus Rasheed Khan and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant came to be dismissed (for short "the impugned award"). Brief facts: 2. Claimant-Kishan Singh was driving the scooter, bearing registration No.HP-27-3493, on 01.03.2006, with all precautions on his own side, i.e. left side of the road. A pick-up van, bearing registration No.HP-18 B-0314, which was being driven by the driver, namely Shri Soma, rashly and negligently, near Village Johron, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, a boy suddenly appeared in front of the said pick-up van, the driver abruptly applied the brakes without taking the precautions, which were supposed to be taken in terms of the mandate of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") read with the H.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules"). In the process, the scooter collided with the Pick-up van. The claimant- Kishan Singh sustained injuries, was taken to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% and had spent a sum of Rs.75,000/-. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 01.01.2008: "1. Whether the petitioner Kishan Singh sustained injuries to his person in the accident caused by respondent No. 2 while driving his Pick-up Van No.HP-18 B-0314 in a rash and negligent manner by hitting the scooter of the petitioner on dated 01.03.2006 at 5.345 PM at place village Johron under Police Station Paonta Sahib, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Relief." 5. The claimant has led evidence. OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Relief." 5. The claimant has led evidence. The owner-insured and the insurer have not led any evidence, however, the driver himself appeared in the witness box. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained unrebutted. 6. The driver has deposed in his cross-examination that he applied the brakes abruptly because a child came in front of the vehicle suddenly. Issues No. 1 and 4: 7. Both these issues are interlinked, thus, are being determined together. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant has not proved the factum of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver- Soma, which is factually incorrect for the reason that there is evidence on the file that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, has not taken any precaution while keeping in mind the fact that somebody would have been crossing the road or somebody may abruptly appear in front of the vehicle and has also not taken due care while applying brakes abruptly. 9. Thus, the pleadings and evidence are sufficient to hold that the driver, namely Shri Soma, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. Pick-up Van, bearing registration No. HP- 18 B-0314, rashly and negligently on 01.03.2006 and caused the accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 4 are set aside and it is held that the claimant has proved that the driver-Soma had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time and caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries. 10. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issue No. 3. Issue No. 3: 11. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove this issue, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the same is decided against the insurer and in favour of the claimant. Issue No. 2: 12. There is evidence on the file that the claimant has sustained injuries in the accident and was under treatment for a considerable period. It is evident from the disability certificate, Ext. PW-3/A, that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. Issue No. 2: 12. There is evidence on the file that the claimant has sustained injuries in the accident and was under treatment for a considerable period. It is evident from the disability certificate, Ext. PW-3/A, that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. The monthly income of the claimant was Rs.8319/- in terms of the salary certificate, Ext. PW- 1/A. The documents on the file do disclose that the claimant has spent a huge amount on his treatment in various hospitals. 13. It appears that the claimant has not been paid any compensation under 'No Fault Liability'. 14. The question is - what is the appropriate amount to be awarded to the claimant? 15. Keeping in view the extent of the permanent disability suffered by the claimant read with the fact that he had undergone pain and sufferings, I deem it proper to exercise guess work and award Rs.50,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings', Rs.50,000/- under the head 'loss of income' and Rs.20,000/- under the head 'treatment charges'. 16. Viewed thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.20,000/-) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 17. The factum of insurance of the offending vehicle, i.e. Pick-up van, bearing registration No.HP-18B-0314, is not in dispute. Thus, the insurer of the said vehicle is saddled with liability. 18. It is worthwhile to record herein that during the pendency of the appeal, the claimant has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 19. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition of the amount, 50% of the same be released in favour of appellant No. 1(e) and rest 50% be released in favour of the remaining appellants in equal shares after proper identification. 20. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is set aside and the appeal is allowed, as indicated hereinabove. 21. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.