JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)—By way of this appeal, appellant/Corporation has assailed the award passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in MAC Petition No. 77 of 2007, dated 30.06.2011, vide which learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition, granted the following relief to the petitioner. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? "Judged in the light of my findings on the issues above, particularly issue No. 2, the petition succeeds and is allowed and an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- is awarded in favour of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization. Since the respondent No. 1 was employee of respondent No. 2, therefore, the respondent No. 2 is vicariously liable for the negligent act of respondent No. 1 and the entire claim is to be indemnified by the respondent No. 2. The amount of compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner shall be invested by way of fixed deposit in some nationalized bank for a period of 37 months. A memo of cost be prepared accordingly and the file after due completion be consigned to record room." 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case as well as the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 3. It is not in dispute that that claimant Sunil Kumar sustained injuries in a motor accident which took place on 07.10.2006. It is also not in dispute that vehicles involved in the accident were Bus bearing registration No. HP-65-7532, driven by Kehar Singh, which was owned by the present appellant and the Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23A-0777, owned by Ram Singh which was being driven by respondent No. 3 Manoj Kumar, on which, the claimant was a pillion rider. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence produced on record by the respective parties held that it stood proved on record that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus in issue by its driver. Learned Tribunal rejected the contention of the present appellant that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver/rider of the Motorcycle. Learned Tribunal rejected the contention of the present appellant that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver/rider of the Motorcycle. Learned Tribunal held that onus to prove that driver of the Motorcycle was negligent was upon the present appellant, however, except for the statement of the driver and conductor of the Bus, who deposed as RW1 and RW2 respectively, no evidence was produced by the appellant-Corporation to prove this fact. No independent witness was examined to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Motorcycle. Learned Tribunal further held that claimant had examined two independent witnesses, PW4 Raj Kumar and PW5 Madan Lal, who had categorically deposed that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. Thus relying upon the testimony of PW4 and PW5, and after taking into consideration the medical record before it, learned Tribunal held that it stood established that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. While assessing the compensation in favour of the claimant, learned Tribunal by taking into account the age of the claimant, which was 15 years at the time when the accident took place and the factum of his being a student of 9th class, held that the claimant was entitled to compensation for loss of income by taking his notional income to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum by relying upon II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Tribunal also held that the statement of PW2 Dr. Satish Sharma demonstrated that the disability sustained by the claimant was permanent and that it would be difficult for him (claimant) to carry out day to day work nor he could pursue his further studies nor he was in a position to do manual work and one person would be required by the claimant as an attendant throughout his life. Learned Tribunal also held that as the claimant could not take up any job, therefore, for the purpose of loss of income, total disability has to be taken into consideration and no amount was liable to be deducted while assessing the compensation. Learned Tribunal thereafter applied the multiplier of 15 and computed future loss of earnings of the claimant as Rs. 2,25,000/-. In addition, it awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. Learned Tribunal thereafter applied the multiplier of 15 and computed future loss of earnings of the claimant as Rs. 2,25,000/-. In addition, it awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering charges and Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet charges. In all, an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- was determined as compensation so payable to the claimant and the appellant was held liable to compensate the claimant on the ground that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the Bus who happens to be an employee of the Corporation. 4. In order to ascertain as to whether the findings so returned by learned Tribunal are borne out from the records of the case or are perverse, this Court minutely went through the records of the case. A perusal of the deposition made by PW4 and PW5 demonstrates that these two witnesses who are independent witnesses have clearly and categorically stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the Bus. The credibility of these two witnesses could not be impeached in the course of their cross examination. Now there is nothing on record from which it could be deciphered that these witnesses deposed incorrectly in the Court or they were interested witnesses. On the contrary, their statements not only inspire confidence but also appear to be cogent and truthful. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the appellant-Corporation''s Bus is duly borne out from the records of the case. 5. Disability certificate of the claimant is on record as PW2/A. The same has been proved by Dr. Satish Sharma, Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, who entered the witness box as PW2. Deposition of this witness as well as a perusal of Ext. PW2/A demonstrates that the Medical Board which examined the claimant on the basis of disability certificate issued by PGI, Chandigarh, found the disability of the claimant to be 68% permanent disability in relation to whole body. PW2 also deposed that claimant finds it difficult to carry out day to day routine work nor he can pursue his further studies and he also could not do manual work. PW2 also deposed that claimant finds it difficult to carry out day to day routine work nor he can pursue his further studies and he also could not do manual work. The discharge summary of the claimant as issued by PGI, Chandigarh, is on record as PW3/A, a perusal of which demonstrates that it stood recorded therein that the claimant was hit by a Bus at 3:00 p.m. on 07.10.2006 at Bilaspur. Middle Standard Examination Certificate of the claimant is on record as PW3/C which demonstrates that he passed his middle standard examination from Government Senior Secondary School, Kallar, District Bilaspur in March 2006 and that his date of birth was 20.06.1992. 6. Thus from the above discussion it is but evident that the claimant sustained injuries resulting in 68% permanent disability in relation to whole body on account of the accident which resulted due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Corporation. The age of the claimant stood proved on record, so does his education status. Taking into consideration the fact that a young boy, aged 15 years, has been left with a permanent disability of 68 %, in my considered view, the compensation as has been assessed by learned Tribunal is both fair and reasonable. Learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the notional income in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and thereafter has correctly applied the multiplier of 15, taking into consideration the age of the claimant at the time when the accident took place. Additional compensation so granted to the claimant under the head of transportation charges, attendant charges, pain and suffering charges and special diet charges is also neither unreasonable nor it can be said that learned Tribunal erred in granting compensation in favour of the claimant under the said heads. The reasons which have been assigned by the learned Tribunal while granting compensation under the said heads are cogent and valid reasons which are duly borne out from the records and this Court concurs with the reasoning so given by the learned Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. No orders as to costs.