JUDGMENT 1. Ms Khan Shazia - respondent herein, a Class 12th student, was seriously injured when Maruti Car bearing Registration No. JK03-1029, in which she was travelling from Vessu to Qazigund, was hit by a speeding Army vehicle at Damjan N.H.I.A. The injuries have left her disabled for rest of her life. Sometime after the tragic accident, respondent approached Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag, with a Claim Petition under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act. She, on grounds urged in claim petition, demanded compensation of Rs. 50.00 Lacs from Union of India and its functionaries -appellants herein. Appellants opposed claim petition on grounds set out in their written statement. 2. Tribunal, on perusal of pleadings, settled following issues: i. Whether the petitioner was travelling in Maruti bearing Registration No. JK03-1029 from Vessu to Qazigund and on reaching Damjan national Highway Maruti was hit by Army vehicle, as a result of which heavy damage was caused to the Maruti vehicle and the petitioner was seriously injured and suffered 50% permanent disability as a result of vehicular accident? OPP ii. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to respondents? OPP iii. Whether none of the vehicles of the respondents is involved in the accident as the accident was caused to the petitioner by his own rash and negligent act? OPR iv. Relief. 3. Parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their stand. Respondent examined a number of witnesses to substantiate her claim. Appellants felt contented with statement of Investigating Officer of case FIR registered at local police station after accident. 4. Tribunal, on going through pleadings and evidence, assessed Rs. 10.86 Lacs as compensation with following breakup: i) Loss of dependency: Rs. 4.86 Lacs ii) Loss of pain and suffering: Rs. 2.00 Lacs iii) Medical expenses: Rs. 2.00 Lacs iv) Loss of amenities of life: Rs. 2.00 Lacs Total: Rs.l0.86Lacs Appellants were also directed to pay 6% interest on awarded amount. 5. Appellants, aggrieved with Award, have come up with Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal on hand. They question award, inter alia, on three grounds - (a) income taken by Tribunal to assess compensation is on higher side; (b) there was no evidence to take respondent's age as 25 years; (b) Tribunal applied wrong multiplier while assessing loss of compensation. 6. Heard and considered. 7. Facts are not in dispute. They question award, inter alia, on three grounds - (a) income taken by Tribunal to assess compensation is on higher side; (b) there was no evidence to take respondent's age as 25 years; (b) Tribunal applied wrong multiplier while assessing loss of compensation. 6. Heard and considered. 7. Facts are not in dispute. It is admitted case of parties that respondent was seriously injured when Maruti Car, in which she was travelling, was hit by rashly and negligently driven Army vehicle. Tribunal has taken monthly income of respondent as Rs. 4500/- and rightly deducted 50% of income on account of personal expenses. Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to have taken income on higher side or ignored settled legal principles on the subject. 8. The argument that there was no material before Tribunal, except pleading to conclude that respondent was 25 years of age at the time of accident, is devoid of any substance. Respondent did not only plead of 25 years age but substantiated the averment on strength of evidence including statement of doctor, who treated her after accident. Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to have applied wrong multiplier. Tribunal worked out multiplier and multiplicand having regard to settled legal principles and law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , and assessed loss of income, accordingly. Viewed thus, Tribunal cannot be said to have awarded compensation over and above what was due to respondent having regard to spirit and mandate of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Tribunal, as record on file would reveal, has been conservative while assessing compensation. Accident left a school going girl disabled for rest of her life. She because of accident has not been in a position to pursue her studies. A host of amenities of life, that would have been otherwise accessible to respondent, are rendered inaccessible because of unfortunate accident. She cannot have match of her choice. Her prospect to pursue job of her choice is rendered bleak and so is true about her prospectus of marriage. She would need a support and medical treatment for rest of her life. 10. Tribunal ought to have considered all these aspects while assessing compensation. She cannot have match of her choice. Her prospect to pursue job of her choice is rendered bleak and so is true about her prospectus of marriage. She would need a support and medical treatment for rest of her life. 10. Tribunal ought to have considered all these aspects while assessing compensation. It was to realise that in terms of Section 168 of the Act, it was under a Statutory obligation to assess "just compensation" having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and the way accident impacted respondent's life. 11. This Court, while dealing with Appeal arising out of Award under Motor Vehicle Act, is equally under an obligation to find out whether compensation assessed is just within meaning of Section 168 of the Act. This duty is to be discharged irrespective of Cross Appeal by victim of accident. I am of considered view that respondent deserves to be awarded Rs.3.50 Lacs on account of loss of amenities of life, instead of Rs. 2.00 Lacs awarded by Tribunal. 12. It is stated by learned' counsel for respondent that respondent is bedridden and not in a position to move without support. It is further stated that respondent is likely to incur expenditure on account of attendant and future medical expenses. These aspects of the matter have been completely ignored by Tribunal while assessing compensation. I am of the view that respondent deserves to be granted Rs. 1.50 Lacs on account of future medical expenses. 13. Against above backdrop, Award dated 9th May 2014 is modified as under: "Appellant shall pay Rs. 13,86,0007- to respondent with interest @ 6% per annum from filing of claim petition till the assessed amount is paid to her." 14. Let amount deposited be released in favour of respondent preferably through payee's account cheque. The award amount over and above depos.-ited amount, be deposited within four weeks, whereafter it shall be released in favour of respondent. 15. Disposed of. Appeal disposed of