JUDGMENT : Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. MP No. 2/2016 in Condl. (C) No. 18/2016 1. Since both the parties have agreed for disposal of the main appeal, MP No. 2/2016, seeking release of 25% of the amount is disposed of accordingly. 2. So far as Condl. (C) No. 18/2016, is concerned, there is delay of 163 days in filing the main appeal. Learned counsel for respondent-1/claimant does not object to the condoning of delay in view of the fact that the main appeal is being taken up for final disposal. 3. Condonation of delay application is also disposed of accordingly. Main Appeal (CIMA No. 143/2016) 4. Registry is directed to register and number the main appeal. 5. By consent of both the parties, the main appeal is taken on board for final disposal. 6. The Insurance Company primarily contested the award of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation. 7. The accident in this case happened on 4th February, 2013. The claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was preferred. The injured claimant, 35 years of age, was a mason by profession. He was returning from work on the Sakhi-Maidan-Kalai road at kilometer 28th. Respondent No. 3, driver of the JCB, driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner resulting in serious injuries and his left arm was crushed. He was shifted to CMC and Hospital, Jammu where his crushed left arm was amputated. He filed a claim petition for compensation stating that he was working as mason and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. 8. The Insurance Company, the owner and driver of the vehicle were arrayed as respondents. The offending vehicle insured with the Insurance Company was the cause of the accident and injury was not disputed before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle appeared and filed their objections. The driver of the offending vehicle did not put in appearance and remained absent. The owner of the vehicle after filing objections remained absent. Both were set at ex-parte by the Tribunal. 9. Claimant was examined as PW-1, besides he examined one Mohd. Farooq as PW-2, Mohd. Aslam as PW-3, Mohd. Maroof as PW-1 and Dr. Manjeet Singh as PW-5. Appellant/Respondent has not examined any witness. 10. The owner of the vehicle after filing objections remained absent. Both were set at ex-parte by the Tribunal. 9. Claimant was examined as PW-1, besides he examined one Mohd. Farooq as PW-2, Mohd. Aslam as PW-3, Mohd. Maroof as PW-1 and Dr. Manjeet Singh as PW-5. Appellant/Respondent has not examined any witness. 10. The Tribunal records that the Insurance Company/Respondent-1 as also Respondent-2, owner of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal have admitted the accident and have not produced any evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, the plea of negligence on the part of the driver of JCB and liability of the owner of the vehicle to compensate the victim was confirmed. The Insurance Company admittedly insurer of the offending vehicle was held liable to compensate the claimant. That issue is no more in dispute. 11. The main plea in appeal is on the quantum of compensation. Based on the nature of accident, in which the claimant a 35 year old mason, who was injured, the Tribunal fixed the income as Rs. 500/- per day, being a skill labour. The income was taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month for calculation of the compensation, i.e., Rs. 72,000/- per annum. Based on the 80% disability certificate issued by the doctor and relying upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case titled Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Ors., reported as 2011 ACJ 1 , the Tribunal came to hold that the nature of disability is permanent. Injured cannot perform his duty as before and, therefore, he will be given the benefit of compensation by adopting multiplier method holding that he has lost his earning power in totality. The evidence of doctor (PW-5) was relied for this purpose. The loss of earning capacity was determined at 80% and accordingly the annual pecuniary loss was fixed at Rs. 57,600/-. Tribunal also relied upon the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported as 2009 (3) Supreme 487 , to adopt multiplier applicable to this case. The injured claimant fell within the age group of 31 to 35. Therefore, proper multiplier would be 16. Accordingly, the total pecuniary loss of earning capacity has been calculated as 57,600 x 16 = Rs. 9,21,600/-. Tribunal granted compensation for pain and suffering including loss of amenities at Rs. 30,000/- and for miscellaneous expenses like treatment including attendant charges Rs. The injured claimant fell within the age group of 31 to 35. Therefore, proper multiplier would be 16. Accordingly, the total pecuniary loss of earning capacity has been calculated as 57,600 x 16 = Rs. 9,21,600/-. Tribunal granted compensation for pain and suffering including loss of amenities at Rs. 30,000/- and for miscellaneous expenses like treatment including attendant charges Rs. 15,000/- totalling to Rs. 9,66,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum till realization. 12. In appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company averred that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation particularly based on higher income. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submits that even if the minimum daily wages may differ from place to place yet the compensation is just. 14. In this case, the injured claimant hails from a remote area Poonch. The claimant, however, was 35 years of age. The disability will affect his future prospects of earning. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the young age of the injured claimant and fix the income higher based on future prospects. 15. This Court finds out no reason to reduce the income even marginally as future prospects have not been taken. Even otherwise, the Tribunal has been very cautious in granting compensation on other heads. In respect of pain and suffering, including loss of amenities, the Tribunal has granted only Rs. 30,000/- as compensation which is meager. So far as food and extra-nutrition, no amount has been granted and only meager amount has been granted, for the purpose of transport facilities in the case of claimant hailing from remote area meager amount has been granted. 16. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to reduce the amount of compensation. Hence the appeal is dismissed. There is no dispute as far as interest component is concerned.