JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Respondent, a Senior Advocate, has suffered 15% permanent disability due to multiple injuries, which he sustained in a vehicular accident, on 31st December, 2009 at Sonwar Srinagar when he was traveling in Maruti Car bearing No. JK13A-3224, which was hit, by offending vehicle bearing registration No. DLIGB-4919, due to its rash and negligent driving by appellant No. 3. 2. Claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, as was filed by the respondent before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pulwama, has culminated in passing of award dated 12.08.2014 where-under he has been held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 7,01,983 with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its final realization. Dissatisfied with the award, appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 3. On the basis of respective pleadings, following three issues were framed: 1. Whether on 31-12-2009 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DLIGB-4919 by respondent No. 3 the vehicle bearing registration number JK13A-3224 was hit and run over causing serious injuries to the petitioner? OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the accident was caused due to self negligence of the driver of vehicle bearing registration number JK13A-3224? OPR 4. Relief? 4. Claimant in support of his claim has examined himself as a witness and in addition has produced four witnesses, namely, Ghulam Ahmad Head Constable, Abdul Hamid Nengroo, Ghulam Mohammad Nengroo and Dr. Abid Hussain who in categoric terms have given sequence of events vis-a-vis occurrence and sufferance by the claimant. The appellants had also produced three witnesses, namely, Balbir Singh, Sabodh Kumar and Dharmendra. The depositions of these three witnesses as recorded, on proper appreciation, are found not to have negatived the case of the claimant. 5. The finding recorded by learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is in consonance with the evidence as has been led and has been fully proved. Finding on issue No. 3 has gone against the appellants as they have failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the vehicle (Maruti) in which the claimant was traveling. 5. The finding recorded by learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is in consonance with the evidence as has been led and has been fully proved. Finding on issue No. 3 has gone against the appellants as they have failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the vehicle (Maruti) in which the claimant was traveling. The position of finding recorded thereon is strengthened by the fact that the case had been registered as FIR No. 289/2009 P/S Ram Munshibagh against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. DLIGB-4919 belonging to the appellants and driven by their own driver. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet (challan) had been presented. The driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Balbir Singh, had confessed to the guilt, as such, was convicted. Rs. 700/- were imposed as fine and realized from him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 RPC which position has been correctly appreciated and referred in the impugned award by the Tribunal. 6. The accident, then rash and negligent driving, injuries suffered and permanent disablement to the extent of 15% is not denied. 7. While recording finding on issue No. 2, learned Tribunal, in-keeping with the social object of the Act, has assessed the damage under two heads, i.e.: (i) Pecuniary damage which include expenses incurred on hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and other expenses, loss of earnings during the period of treatment on account of permanent disability; (ii) Non-pecuniary damages on account of pain, suffering, trauma and loss of amenities of life. 8. Claimant being 67 years old, multiplier of 5 has been properly applied. Learned Tribunal on the basis of established annual income of the claimant with 15% disablement and loss of future income has worked out compensation on the following basis: (a) Monthly income of the petitioner = Rs. 30,000/- (b) 50% of said annual income considered as prospective annual income. = Rs. 15,00 (c) Total (a + b) Rs. 30,000 + Rs. 15,000 = Rs. 45,000 (d) The established percentage of disablement of the petitioner is only 15%, thus, deduction to be made from the monthly income as per the percentage of the disablement is 85% and monthly, it comes at = Rs. 38,250/- (e) Thus actual loss of annual income comes at (c-d) Rs. 45,000 - Rs. 38,250 = Rs. 15,000 = Rs. 45,000 (d) The established percentage of disablement of the petitioner is only 15%, thus, deduction to be made from the monthly income as per the percentage of the disablement is 85% and monthly, it comes at = Rs. 38,250/- (e) Thus actual loss of annual income comes at (c-d) Rs. 45,000 - Rs. 38,250 = Rs. 6,750/- (f) The relevant multiplier to be applied for assessing the loss of income 5, therefore, the total loss of income is Rs. 6,750 x 12 x 5 = Rs. 4,05,000 9. The finding recorded by the Tribunal to the extent that the claimant was admitted in Bone & Joint Hospital, Barzulla Srinagar from 31.12.2009 to 08.01.2010 under MRD No. 10493 and was operated upon, then was again admitted in Valley Ortho craft Nursing Home, Srinagar under MRD No. 3784 on 27.07.2010 and after second operation was discharged on 31st July, 2010, is not denied. The vouchers and bills of medicines and other medical aid amounting to Rs. 51,983/- have been fully proved. The position of claimant was such that he had to take aid of an attendant on the basis of which also amount has been awarded which cannot be found fault with as the doctor in his statement and also in the certificate issued has made it clear that the injury has shortened the right leg of the claimant by one inch with restriction of terminal flexion at the knee and has Hypoesthesia at the site of ileac crest right side and occasional discomfort at the fracture site. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the claimant not being an income tax payee, his income could not be taken as Rs. 30,000/- per month, the award has been passed without appreciating the evidence as was led by both the parties. 11. The grievance as projected is that the monthly income of the respondent(claimant) has been wrongly taken as Rs. 30,000, in case it would have been so, then he would have been an income tax payee which, admittedly, he is not, therefore, Rs. 30,000/- should not have been taken as monthly income of the claimant. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Yousuf Bhat & Ors." reported in 2006 JKJ 17226. 30,000/- should not have been taken as monthly income of the claimant. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Yousuf Bhat & Ors." reported in 2006 JKJ 17226. In para 13 of the said judgment, it has been opined that "the Tribunal had determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- only on the statement of one witness Nazir Ahmad who had not disclosed as to on what basis the income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000. A person earning an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month had necessarily to be an income tax payee and in absence of any such records having been produced by the petitioners, statement of Nazir Ahmad Bhat justifying the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- would not inspire confidence for being relied upon for determination of income." 12. The facts of the reported judgment are distinguishable. In the reported case, the deceased was stated to be a businessman dealing in fruits and his income was taken on the basis of statement of a witness, namely, Nazir Ahmad who, in fact, is deceased but inadvertently instead of Nazir Ahmad Khan, Nazir Ahmad Bhat has been referred to. On facts, case of the claimant is altogether different. Claimant himself is an Advocate, he has appeared as a witness and has in categorical terms testified that he was earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month, however, he was not an income tax payee as he had to incur lot of expenses on chamber etc. Appellants have led evidence before the Tribunal but there is not even a whisper in the statements of witnesses as against the income of the claimant. Statement of the claimant as a witness as a whole has remained to be controverted rather repelled, therefore, there was no option open to the Tribunal but to accept the same. Even otherwise, default in paying income tax would not mean that the income of the claimant is incorrect when the income as claimed is otherwise proved. 13. Next contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence as a whole has not been referred to in the judgment. Even otherwise, default in paying income tax would not mean that the income of the claimant is incorrect when the income as claimed is otherwise proved. 13. Next contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence as a whole has not been referred to in the judgment. In view of admitted position of occurrence and the un-controverted position of the evidence as led by the claimant, there was no need to refer statements of all the witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant was pointedly asked to show as to whether there is any such evidence, which disentitles the claimant from claiming amount of compensation as has been awarded to him, which he could not. That apart, while scrutinizing the evidence as has been recorded, the claimant has fully established that he has suffered 15% disability, which is also certified by the medical certificate issued by the witness Dr. Aabid Hussain who has been examined. The said doctor has also qualified in his deposition that a rod has been inserted in the leg of the claimant which later on has to be removed and then he has to undergo further surgery. 14. Non-appreciation of evidence as contended by the counsel for the appellants is totally incorrect because learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective. It has to be born in mind that in claim petitions, the procedure as applicable for dealing with civil regular suits is not strictly to be followed. Protraction of the proceedings by having resort to adversarial mode of litigation and then adherence to the strict procedure followed in the trial of regular suits is not required otherwise the object of social welfare legislation will be defeated. 15. There is no dispute vis-a-vis accident, involvement of the offending vehicle belonging to the appellants in the accident, rash and negligent driving by appellant No. 3, position of the claimant being a Senior Advocate, the claimant having undergone two surgeries and his leg having been shortened by two inch. 16. While awarding compensation, a correct approach has been adopted. The award of compensation under following heads: (i) Actual medical expenses 51,983/- (ii) Future medical expenses 20,000/- (iii) Attendant 50,000/- (iv) Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- (v) Special diet 25,000/- is found to be correct and even not disputed but annual income of the claimant is disputed without any cogent reasons. 16. While awarding compensation, a correct approach has been adopted. The award of compensation under following heads: (i) Actual medical expenses 51,983/- (ii) Future medical expenses 20,000/- (iii) Attendant 50,000/- (iv) Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- (v) Special diet 25,000/- is found to be correct and even not disputed but annual income of the claimant is disputed without any cogent reasons. A Senior Advocate is expected to earn much more than what his income has been taken. To deny him 15% of the minimum income shall be a travesty of justice. The claimant has been very fair while deposing before the Tribunal that his monthly income is only Rs. 30,000, therefore, finding vis-a-vis said issue is not open to question for the reasons stated hereinabove. 17. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, on proper appreciation of evidence, as is available on the records of the Tribunal, the findings records by the Tribunal are found to be quite apposite in consonance with law and in-keeping with the social object of the welfare legislation. The appeal is found to be devoid of merit, as such, dismissed. The awarded amount, as has been deposited, shall be released in favour of the claimant along with interest as may have accrued thereon, on proper identification and after adhering to all required codal formalities. 18. Record of the Tribunal along with copy of the judgment be sent to the Tribunal.