JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 27th November, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, (Camp at Bilaspur) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. No. 90 of 2005/04, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,67,500/- came to be awarded with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of the claim petition, in favour of the claimant and the insurer-United India Insurance Company, respondent No-3 herein was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The owner, driver and the claimant have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the award amount is excessive and the claimant himself had contributed in causing the accident. Issue No. 1. 4. The Tribunal after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence, has rightly held that the accident was caused by respondent No. 2, driver of bus bearing registration No. HP-23-2921, while driving the same, rashly and negligently. The driver has not questioned the said findings. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion in paras 9 to 18 of the impugned award. 6. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issue No. 3. 5. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, has not led any evidence. The copy of driving licence is exhibited as Ext. R-2/A on record, which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 2 6. The compensation is to be awarded in an injury case under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads by making guess work, as held by the Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 . 7. The Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085 in para-7 of the judgment has held as under: “7. 7. The Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085 in para-7 of the judgment has held as under: “7. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 8. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Ins Insurance Company Limited, urance reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787 also laid down guidelines for granting compensation in injury cases. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 & 9 of the judgment hereinbelow: “8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 9. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 9. The term "disability", as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 9. The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771 also discussed the entire law and laid down the guidelines how to grant compensation. 10. The claimant has suffered 25% disability to the lower limb, which has shattered his physical frame. The Tribunal has discussed all aspects of the case from paras 19 to 29 of the impugned award and awarded compensation, which appears to be reasonable and cannot be said be excessive. 11. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The amount of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was to be awarded for all heads except for future income, from the date of the claim petition and for future income, was to be awarded from the date of impugned award and not from the date of the claim petition. Ordered accordingly. 12. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing it in his account. The excess amount be refunded to the insurance company through payees’ cheque account or by depositing it in its bank account. 13. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of. 14. The excess amount be refunded to the insurance company through payees’ cheque account or by depositing it in its bank account. 13. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of. 14. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.