JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the Award (Annexure-A) dated 26th February, 2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, whereby the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 19,67,658/- in favour of respondent No. 1 (petitioner therein) with pendentilite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. The facts, as these emerge from the study of the file under consideration are, that a claim petition came to be filed by respondent no.1 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu on 06th March, 2013, seeking compensation on account of injuries received in a road traffic accident on 19th May, 2012 near Dushnaha (old bridge) on NHW-Jammu-Pathankot road, involving vehicle No. PB02AP-9905 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2, namely, Sardar Kulwant Singh (Driver), which hit the respondent No. 1 (petitioner therein), who was coming from the opposite direction on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. JK02J-3447, as a result, the respondent No. 1 was seriously injured. 3. In the claim petition, it is alleged that the petitioner was of 41 years of age and was working as agent in the Insurance Company, namely, P.A.C.L India Ltd. and was earning Rs. 11,000/- per month therefrom and in addition to this, the petitioner was also running a tent house and earning Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- per annum as income from agriculture prior to his accident. 4. It is the case of appellant before the Tribunal, that no accident occurred on 19th May, 2012 near Dushana (old bridge) NHW Jammu-Pathankot road involving Vehicle No. PB02AP-9905. It was further pleaded in the objections that a false and frivolous case was lodged against the appellant. 5. I have considered rival contentions and record. 6. Learned Tribunal, out of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- A. “Whether an accident took place on 19th May, 2012 at about 12:30 A.M near Dushnaha (old bridge) on NHW Jammu-Pathankot road, Jammu by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. PB02AP-9905 by its driver, as a result of which, petitioner-Chaman Lal received grievous injuries and has been disabled. B. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? C. Relief. OPP.” 7. B. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? C. Relief. OPP.” 7. After framing the issues, the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein), who is the claimant besides himself examined Rakesh Kumar, (PW-2) Roop Lal (PW-3), Dr. V.K. Sharma (PW-4) and Record Keeper-Yashpal (PW-5), whereas appellant (respondent No. 1 therein) examined the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 2 herein. 8. The tribunal after considering the evidence lead by the claimant (respondent No. 1) fixed the annual income of the claimant at Rs. 1,19,013/- PA, after taking into consideration the income tax return of assessment years 2012-2013; Tribunal further held that though claimant has suffered 60% of disability, but as per workman compensation Act, this disability is taken as 54%: as per tribunal this 54% amounts to loss of earning capacity and in this way annual loss of earning capacity comes to Ra.64267/ PA; to its tribunal further added 30% to the income of the claimant as increment to future loss of income relying on age of claimant (41 year at the time accident ) and law cited in Syed Sadiq v Divisional U.I.Insurance ( 2014 (2)SCC 735 , Santosh Devi v National Insurance Company (2012) 6 SCC 421 and Rajesh v Rajbir 2013(3)SCC 817. In this way tribunal took annual income as Rs.83, 547/-. 9. Tribunal taking into consideration the age of claimant applied multiplier of 14 and taking into consideration pecuniary and non pecuniary damages under various heads passed the award to the tune of Rs. 19,67,658/- in favour of respondent No. 1-claimant along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% throughout till the realization except on the loss of head of future income. Award has been passed under the following heads:- S. No. Head Amount awarded by the Tribunal (1) Loss of future income Rs. 11,69,658/- (2) Fare of Vehicle Rs. 20,000/- (3) Expenditure of attendants Rs. 60,000/- (4) Pain and sufferings Rs. 58,000/- (5) Loss of amenities and pleasure Rs. 1,60,000/- (6) Expenses on Medicines Rs. 3,90,000/- (7) Future expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,00,000/- (8) Special Diet Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 19,67,658/- 10. In the memo of appeal, appellant in the instant appeal has taken various grounds. 20,000/- (3) Expenditure of attendants Rs. 60,000/- (4) Pain and sufferings Rs. 58,000/- (5) Loss of amenities and pleasure Rs. 1,60,000/- (6) Expenses on Medicines Rs. 3,90,000/- (7) Future expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,00,000/- (8) Special Diet Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 19,67,658/- 10. In the memo of appeal, appellant in the instant appeal has taken various grounds. The ground taken that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, while allowing the claim petition passed an award, which is not only exaggerated, has assessed the income of the claimant on guess work at Rs. 1,19,013/- per annum, without any basis, is not tenable. Because bare perusal of award, it is evident that Tribunal has taken into consideration the Income Tax Return filed by petitioner for the year 2012-2013, while assessing the annual income. Another ground taken that tribunal while passing the impugned award, has taken age of the deceased as 41 and thereby adopting the multiplier of 14 without any evidence, is also not sustainable. Because in petition, age of petitioner has been mentioned as 41 years; in Discharge Medical Card the age has been mentioned as 40 years and in medical certificate, in disability certificate EXTP-VKS the age has also been mentioned as 40 years. So there is ample proof in this regard. Further, Court below has relied upon SARLA VERMA Vs DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & Anr., 2009 (3) SUPREME 487 while applying the multiplier of 14. Relevant para of judgment reads as under:- “21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 11. In this way, there is no incorrectness in the award. 12. In this way, there is no incorrectness in the award. 12. Another ground taken that Tribunal has granted Rs.1,00, 000/- on account of future treatment, which is quite exaggerated, is also not tenable. Because PW Dr. V.K .Verma, who was one of the medical board members and issued disability certificate EXTP-VKS, in his statement before tribunal has stated that petitioner may have to undergo another surgery which can be above knee amputation. He has also stated that special diet would be required during bed confinement. 13. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed. The record of Court below be sent back. The award, if has been deposited, shall be released as per Award in favour of claimant.