JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., upon, MACP(RBT) No. 58-D/II/2011, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs. 8,94,580/- along with costs, and, interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimant, and, the apposite intemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer. 2. The claimant/respondent No.1, in sequel, to the rash and negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2 herein, sustained injuries upon her person, and, in consequence thereof, she, was entailed with 15% permanent disability, disability whereof is pronounced in the apposite disability certificate, borne in Ex.PW1/A. The counsel for the insurer, has, contended with much vehemence before this Court (a) that with the apt insurance policy, borne in Ex.RW3/B, hence, casting an interdiction against respondent No.2 herein, driving the insured vehicle, in, an inebriated condition, and, with apt therewith affirmative evidence standing comprised, in, the report of the FSL concerned, borne in Ex. RW3/C, and, it rather making bespeakings qua respondent No.1, being, at the relevant time, in, an inebriated condition, (b) thereupon, with the apt interdiction borne in Ex.RW3/B, being visibly infringed, thereupon, even if, hence valid affirmative findings, stand, recorded, upon, the issue appertaining to the claimant sustaining injuries on her person, in sequel, to the rash and negligent manner of driving, of, the offending vehicle by the respondent, (c) yet the aforesaid valid espousal, rather rendered unamenable, for, fastening, upon it, the apposite indemnificatory liability. However, the aforesaid contention is rudderless, given this Court in a decision rendered in a case titled as Khem Chand vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors , (2010) 1 LatestHLJ 1 (HP), mandating, qua the inebriated condition, of, the driver of the offending vehicle, especially, at the relevant time, being statutorily unespousable, by, the Insurance company, as, an apt exculpatory ground. 3. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has also contended with much vigour, that, with respondent No.2 herein, holding, at the relevant time only a learner''s licence, (i) hence, he was, in contemporaneity thereto, rather enjoined to be accompanied, by a licenced driver, (ii) whereas, in contemporaneity, of, occurrence, of, the relevant mishap, his remaining unaccompanied, by a trained licenced driver, (iii) thereupon, it was unbefitting, for, the learned Tribunal, to, fasten the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer. However, it appears that the aforesaid contention is also surmisally made by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, (iv) given there existing ample evidence on record, qua, in contemporaneity, of, the occurrence, rather respondent No.2 herein, being accompanied by his father Chattar Singh, who, at the relevant time evidently held the apt driving licence. Since, the efficacy of the aforesaid evidence, remained unconcerted to be undermined, hence the apt corollary thereof, (iv) is qua the purported infringement made by respondent No.1, comprised in his, despite only holding a learner''s licence, and, his not, purportedly at the relevant time being accompanied, by a well trained licenced driver, and, hence purported apt breaches being committed by him, vis-a-vis, the insurance policy, rather being unamenable to a construction qua their being any evident transgression or breaches of the apposite insurance policy, hence, the apt fastening(s), of, the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer is construable, to be both valid and befitting. 4. The learned counsel, appearing for the insurer, has proceeded to contend (a) that the quantification of compensation made, vis-a-vis, the claimant, under the apposite heads of pain or sufferings, and, medical expenses both being excessive and exorbitant, given there existing no evidence on record, in support thereto. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs, stands, awarded, under, the head "pain and suffering", and, in making the aforesaid assessment, the learned tribunal, has, borne in mind, the factum of the claimant, remaining hospitalized w.e.f. 6.11.2010 to 12.12.2010. Consequently, the prime reason, for, assessing compensation, vis-a-vis, the claimant, under, the head "pain and sufferings", rather ensues from hers remaining hospitalized for the aforesaid period, (b) thereupon, it was hence inappropriate for the learned tribunal to deduce therefrom, given, the aforesaid minimal period of hospitalization of the claimant, hers being entitled, to compensation in a sum of Rs. two lacs under the head "pain and sufferings". Consequently, the aforesaid amount is reduced from Rs. two lacs under the head "pain and sufferings". Consequently, the aforesaid amount is reduced from Rs. Two lacs to Rs. 50,000/-. The aforesaid reduction is strengthened by the fact, that, the learned tribunal, under, the head of "expenses towards conveyance and food nourishment", rather proceeding to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 5. The assessment of compensation, comprised in a sum of Rs. 53,380/- under the head "medical expenses" though, is in stark disconcurrence, with, the total of Exts. P-1 to P-23, yet the aforesaid factum would not constrain this Court, to reduce the compensation assessed, under the aforesaid head, (a) given the severity or gravity of the permanent disability entailed upon her, and, as stands pronounced, in, disability certificate, borne in Ex.PW1/A, (b) besides reiteratedly when the expenses incurred by the claimant, for, hers recuperating, from, the injuries suffered in the mishap, rather, are, concomitantly construable, to, borne in an amount higher, than, the one personified in Ex.P-1 to P-23, (c) hence, non adduction of bill towards medical expenses, are, construable to be a sequel of the claimant, not, maintaining all the bills, appertaining to the expenses incurred by her, towards, purchasing medicines, for treating the apt injuries. Consequently, the assessment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 53,380/- under the head "medical expenses", vis-avis, the claimant, is, not amenable to reduction. 6. The learned Tribunal had assessed a sum of Rs. Consequently, the assessment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 53,380/- under the head "medical expenses", vis-avis, the claimant, is, not amenable to reduction. 6. The learned Tribunal had assessed a sum of Rs. one lakh as compensation, vis-a-vis, the claimant under the head "loss, of, future amenities, and, expectation of life", and, the reason for making the aforesaid quantification, has arisen from Ex.PW1/A, making a clear pronouncement, of, 15% disability being entailed upon the claimant, and, it being permanent in nature besides the chances of reduction, of, the disability being bleak, (a) and, with PW-1 testifying qua the apt per centum, of disability rather perennially affecting, the capacity, of, the injured, to perform manual work, thereupon, in the learned tribunal hence assessing compensation towards loss of future amenities and expectation of life, vis-a-vis, claimant, has obviously borne in mind the aforesaid trite factum, (c) obviously, therefrom the inevitable inference, is, qua the severity and gravity of the disability, when visibly perennially affects or precludes the claimant, to enjoy to the fullest her life, besides hence the apt disability rather hampering the facile movement, of, a vital member, of her body, (d) thereupon, with, the concomitant entailment, of, pain and suffering, upon, the claimant being also perennial, besides there being, also, a, concomitant perennial, trammeling, in, the claimant hence enjoying, her, life to the fullest, (e) hence, the assessment, as, done by the learned tribunal, of compensation, under, the head "loss of future amenities and expectation of life", vis-a-vis, claimant, does not suffer from any gross error. 7. However, the learned tribunal has committed gross error while assessing compensation, of Rs. 3,00,000/- vis-a-vis the claimant/respondent herein under the head of disability, rather has erroneously applied, the mandate of the Hon''ble Apex Court in a case titled as Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager , (2014) AIR SC 736, mandate whereof is applicable only vis-a-vis the children hence suffering disability in a motor vehicle accident. Consequently, this court proceeds to assess compensation, vis-a-vis, the claimants under the aforesaid head i.e. compensation on account of disability, on anvil (a) of, with the per mensem salary, of, the petitioner/injured, standing comprised, in a sum of Rs. 36,000/- per month, (b) and, with hers as depicted in the discharge slip, being aged about 50 years, at the time of the apt occurrence, consequenlty, an apt multiplier of 13 is applicable thereon. 36,000/- per month, (b) and, with hers as depicted in the discharge slip, being aged about 50 years, at the time of the apt occurrence, consequenlty, an apt multiplier of 13 is applicable thereon. Keeping in view, that, the permanent disability is 15%, hence, compensation under this head, is, worked out at Rs. 84,240/- 8. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed and in the aforesaid manner the award impugned before this Court is modified. Consequently, the claimant/respondent No.1 herein is entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,28,820/- (Rs. Four lacs, twenty eight thousand and eight hundred twenty only) with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization thereof. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. The indemnificatory liability of the aforesaid compensation amount shall be of the insurer of the offending vehicle. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.