JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 31-10-2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi (for brevity 'Tribunal') in file No. 26/claim petition titled Daleep Singh v. Suresh Padha and others wherein appellant-insurer has been saddled with the liability to pay an amount of Rs. 81,99,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded amount as compensation in favour of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Claimant'). 2. The facts of the case may be noticed briefly. 3. On 1-8-2009 respondent No. 1-claimant was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. JK14B-1253 being plied by Balbir Singh from Bus Stand Reasi towards Jammu. The motorcycle was hit by an Esteem car bearing registration No. JK02D-5758, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 3. Claimant sustained serious injuries resulting in amputation of his right leg below knee. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal against the appellant-insurer and respondents 2 and 3 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- as compensation under different heads. 4. While respondent No. 3-driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition before the Tribunal, respondent No. 2 owner of the offending vehicle, while admitting the ownership of offending vehicle denied its involvement in the alleged accident. He pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-insurer and it was being plied by a person having a valid and effective driving licence and being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The appellant-insurer in his objections before the Tribunal, pleaded that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was further pleaded that the accident was caused by negligent driving of offending vehicle in the hands of driver, as such the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The appellant-insurer, however, admitted the factum of offending vehicle being insured with it. Parties joined the following issues:- "1. Whether petitioner has suffered permanent disability amounting to 80% of his right leg, in a Road Traffic Accident caused due to reckless driving of esteem car bearing JK02D-5758 on 1-8-2009. 2. The appellant-insurer, however, admitted the factum of offending vehicle being insured with it. Parties joined the following issues:- "1. Whether petitioner has suffered permanent disability amounting to 80% of his right leg, in a Road Traffic Accident caused due to reckless driving of esteem car bearing JK02D-5758 on 1-8-2009. 2. Whether the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2 without a valid D/L and against the terms of insurance policy? 3. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to, and from whom? 5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced during inquiry, learned Tribunal awarded compensation totalling Rs. 81,99,000/- in favour of the claimant together with interest computed at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of petition till final realisation of the amount of compensation. The award dated 31-10-2013 passed by the Tribunal has been questioned in the instant appeal on various grounds raised in the memo of appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the claimant was riding the motorcycle in question plied by one Balbir Singh which was hit by the offending Esteem Car plied by respondent No. 3 in which the claimant sustained serious injuries and fractured his right leg. It is also not in dispute that after his initial treatment in Reasi and Jammu Hospitals, claimant was taken to Amandeep Hospital Amritsar where his leg was amputated. Finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1. based on testimonies of claimant. Motorcycle rider-Balbir Singh and Dr. Madan Gandotra which are not controverted by the appellant-insurer and respondents 2 and 3, to the effect that the claimant suffered injuries in a road traffic accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 3under employment of respondent No. 2 and that the claimant had sustained 80% permanent disability, is based on proper appreciation of evidence brought on record by the claimant which remains un-rebutted and cannot be termed erroneous. 8. As regard the finding recorded on issue No. 2, the appellant has not adduced evidence during inquiry to establish that the driving licence of respondent No. 3-Sudhir Sharma before the Tribunal was fake or forged. 8. As regard the finding recorded on issue No. 2, the appellant has not adduced evidence during inquiry to establish that the driving licence of respondent No. 3-Sudhir Sharma before the Tribunal was fake or forged. The appellant-insurer has not proved and produced any verification report in respect of D/L of respondent No. 3 nor produced any record from the Licensing Authority to establish that the driving licence of driver of offending vehicle was not genuine or was invalid. The Tribunal was justified in drawing presumption of genuineness in respect of the driving licence of respondent No. 3, in the given circumstances as it was found that the driving licence in question issued in the name of respondent No. 3-Subhir Sharma on 6-4-2000 was valid up to 5-4-2019 and authorised him to ply motorcycle with gear and Light Motor Vehicle. The appellant-insurer having failed to rebut the presumption drawn on the basis of documentary evidence available on record, finding on this issue cannot be held to be erroneous,. The insurance policy of the offending vehicle placed on record of the Tribunal stands issued in the name of respondent No. 2-Suresh Padha and the same was effective from 6-7-2009 to 5-7-2010 covering date of accident which occurred on 1-8-2009. The documentary evidence on record does not support the contention of the appellant that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 3 without holding a valid and effective driving licence and in breach of terms of the insurance policy. The finding on this issue is, accordingly, upheld. 9. Now coming to issue No. 3, be it seen that the Tribunal has assessed compensation and awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 81,99,600/-. The breakup thereof is as follows :- "(i) Medical treatment/expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- (ii) Loss of earnings during treatment Rs. 75,000/- (iii) Loss of future earnings Rs. 32,40,000/- (iv) Attendant charges Rs. 8,64,000/- (v) Physical and mental pain Rs. 1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of amenities and expectation of life Rs. 1,50,000/- (vii) Charges of artificial limb/future replacement charge Rs. 35,70,000/- Total amount of compensation Rs. 81,99,000/-" 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has assailed the finding on this issue. It is submitted that the compensation assessed is grossly inflated and does not correctly represent the loss of earnings and the loss of amenities suffered by the respondent No. 1-claimant. 1,50,000/- (vii) Charges of artificial limb/future replacement charge Rs. 35,70,000/- Total amount of compensation Rs. 81,99,000/-" 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has assailed the finding on this issue. It is submitted that the compensation assessed is grossly inflated and does not correctly represent the loss of earnings and the loss of amenities suffered by the respondent No. 1-claimant. Per-contra, it is submitted that this is a case of permanent physical disability of lower right limb resulting in amputation. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1-claimant has suffered 80% permanent disability at the young age of 24 years and his dreams have been shattered, he having become crippled for rest of his life. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1-claimant would not also be able to contract marriage and he is deprived of matrimonial-bliss. It is further contended that the respondent No. 1-claimant would depend for support on others for rest of his life and hardship and agony faced by him can hardly be compensated in terms of the pecuniary value. 11. It is Well settled that in cases of personal injury the award of compensation has to be communesurate with the level of sufferings of the victim who has sustained injuries and incurred disability for no wrong attributable to him. The victim of personal injury suffering disability has to undergo loss of amenities of life for rest of his life, depend upon support of others and suffer psychological trauma. The suffering and hardship suffered by the victim in a non-fatal road accident has to be assessed and quantified in terms of damages keeping in view loss of earnings and the unabated trauma lasting for rest of his life. Perfect compensation is hardly possible. However, a just and fair compensation can mitigate hardships of the victim who has suffered personal injuries resulting in permanent disability at the hands of a wrong doer. Depending upon the nature and extent of disability, the victim may be deprived of earning his living, wholly or partially. Each case has to be considered in the light of its peculiar facts. However, in all such cases the amount of compensation assessed, for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages must be just and fair. In awarding compensation the Tribunal must have regard for the extent and degree of incapacity resulting from the injury. Each case has to be considered in the light of its peculiar facts. However, in all such cases the amount of compensation assessed, for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages must be just and fair. In awarding compensation the Tribunal must have regard for the extent and degree of incapacity resulting from the injury. Disability benefits are graded on the basis of nature of disability which may be total or partial, permanent or temporary. The assessment of damages has to be done objectively excluding speculation. This will, not however, rule out some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences. The victim has to be compensated for the disability suffered and the loss occasioned on account of such disability. The quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal in the accident case in hand has to be subjected to re-assessment in light of foregoing proposition of law. 12. Testimony of PW Dr. Madan Gandotra-Member of the Medical Board establishes that the respondent No. 1-claimant had to undergo preemptive amputation of his right limb at the level of lower 1/3 thigh right and he suffered 80% permanent disability. His testimony is emphatic on the point that the respondent No. 1-claimant cannot perform any activities and he has to rely on the support of crutch for going to toilet etc. It is in his deposition that the injured can take help of prosthesis and can avail electronic censor instruments. The testimony of respondent No. 1-claimant establishes that he cannot move and do any work due to amputation of his right leg, that he cannot earn his livelihood: that he cannot have a life-partner and lead a normal life. His testimony further reveals that he needs an artificial leg. The testimony of respondent No. 1-claimant establishes that prior to accident he was working in Future Generalia India Life Insurance Company Ltd. drawing monthly wages of Rs. 15,000/- which, together with other incentives, worked up to Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month. Since he has been rendered incapacitated, he cannot move, discharge his duties as an agency organizer of the above named insurance company and cannot acquire a family. 15,000/- which, together with other incentives, worked up to Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month. Since he has been rendered incapacitated, he cannot move, discharge his duties as an agency organizer of the above named insurance company and cannot acquire a family. The suffering of the respondent No. 1-claimant, who was barely 24 years old at the time of accident, has to be measured in the context of his incapacity on account of permanent disability assessed at 80% due to amputation of his right leg rendering him totally unfit to earn livelihood as agency organizer of Insurance Company and also from the perspective of his dependency upon support of others in daily life and being deprived of matrimonial bliss and raising of a family. Respondent No. 1-claimant is unable to perform any activities involving both lower limbs. He needs a crutch for going to toilet etc. The Tribunal's finding that the respondent No. 1-claimant had suffered loss of earning to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- during the period of his treatment is based on evidence and proper assessment of loss of earning and same does not admit of an exception. 13. Coming to the aspect of loss of future earnings, be it seen that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18 to arrive at an amount of Rs. 32,40,000/- towards loss of future income. Though the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Sarla Venna v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) to apply the multiplier of 18, it does not appear to have taken into consideration uncertainties of life which would warrant scaling down of the multiplier to 15. Therefore, taking uncertainties of life into account and adopting multiplier of 15 the future loss of earning is assessed at Rs. 27.00.000/- without disturbing the finding in regard to monthly income of claimant. 14. Now coming to medical expenses and other incidental charges, it be seen that the respondent No. 1-claimant has undergone treatment in District Hospital, Reasi, GMC Hospital, Jammu and Amandeep Hospital Model Town GT Road, Amritsar. He remained as indoor patient from 2-8-2009 to 16-8-2009. Finally his leg was amputated at Amandeep Hospital Model Town GT Road, Amritsar. After his discharge from Hospital, he has reported for checkup and follow up treatment. He remained as indoor patient from 2-8-2009 to 16-8-2009. Finally his leg was amputated at Amandeep Hospital Model Town GT Road, Amritsar. After his discharge from Hospital, he has reported for checkup and follow up treatment. The respondent No. 1-claimant appears to have placed on record medical bills. Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for medical expenses which does not appear to be excessive. Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 15,000/- for transportation, which also does not appear to be unreasonable. The attendant charges have been assessed at Rs. 8,64,000/- on the basis of respondent No. 1-claimant's version that he has engaged an attendant for Rs. 2,000/- per month. Multiplier of 36 adopted to arrive at the figure is unwarranted, as such multiplier could not exceed the multiplier adopted for arriving at loss of future income. Therefore, adopting the correct multiplier of 15, compensation award-able on this count is re-assessed at Rs. 3,60,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain and suffering, which cannot be termed unreasonable. It has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of amenities and future expectation of life. This too is just and fair. The Tribunal has allowed the provision for artificial limb costing around Rs. 6,00,000/- which has to be replaced after every 5-6 years. However, its observation that the respondent No. 1-claimant will have to change the said limb 5/6 times cannot be supported. Use of artificial limb depends upon the state of health and compatibility of the victim with its use upon medical advice. The Tribunal has assessed the amount awardable on this score at Rs. 35,70,000/- which requires to be reduced in view of the aforesaid reasons. Furthermore the artificial limb, if required in future, may be affordable at a slashed price. Bearing all these factors in mind, it would be appropriate to reduce the amount assessed on this count to Rs. 25,00,000/-. In view of the foregoing, award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding compensation to the claimant as under :- (i) Medical treatment/expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- (ii) Loss of earnings during treatment Rs. 75,000/- (iii) Loss of future earnings Rs. 27,00,000/- (iv) Attendant charges Rs. 3,60,000/- (v) Pain and suffering, Transport charges Rs. 1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of amenities and expectation of life Rs. 1,50,000/- (vii) Charges of artificial limb/future replacement Rs. 25,00,000/- (viii) Transport charges Rs. 15,000/- Total amount of compensation Rs. 61,00,000/- 15. 2,00,000/- (ii) Loss of earnings during treatment Rs. 75,000/- (iii) Loss of future earnings Rs. 27,00,000/- (iv) Attendant charges Rs. 3,60,000/- (v) Pain and suffering, Transport charges Rs. 1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of amenities and expectation of life Rs. 1,50,000/- (vii) Charges of artificial limb/future replacement Rs. 25,00,000/- (viii) Transport charges Rs. 15,000/- Total amount of compensation Rs. 61,00,000/- 15. The amount, adjudged as compensation award-able to respondent No. 1-claimant on reappraisal of evidence, represents just and fair compensation to which the respondent No. 1-claimant is entitled to. Award is, accordingly, modified by reducing the amount of compensation payable by the appellant-Company to the respondent No. 1-claimant to Rs. 61,00,000/- (rupees sixty one lac) as just and fair compensation. Interest shall be admissible at the rate of 7.5% on all counts except for loss of future earnings, attendant charges and charges of artificial limb/future replacement charges. 16. Award is, accordingly, modified. It shall be satisfied by the appellant-insured. Other terms of the award shall remain intact.