JUDGMENT 1. Appellant-Insurer has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Act) to challenge judgment & award dated 22.10.2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short, learned Tribunal) awarding compensation to the injured respondent-claimant. By the impugned judgment & award, learned Tribunal held the appellant insurance company and driver & owner of offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay awarded compensation amount of Rs. 9,05,619 along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that on 02.05.2015, respondent-claimant Jitendra Singh was on way from Bheem to Gomati Circle driving vehicle Bolero RJ-01-TA-1658 (RJ- 20-UA-0071) and reached near village Devdungri on National Highway No. 8, at that time offending vehicle Mahindra Maxx bearing registration No. RJ-06-T-0366, driven by respondent No. 2 Salim Khan in rash and negligent manner, collided with Bolero and as result thereof he sustained grievous and simple injuries. Claim petition filed by the respondent-claimant was contested by appellant insurer denying the averments of claim petition as usual. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed three issues and the claimant tendered oral as well as documentary evidence, however, no evidence on behalf of non-claimants was produced in defence. Finally, the learned Tribunal, after hearing arguments of rival parties, by the impugned judgment and award, held the appellant insurer and driver & owner of offending vehicle liable for payment of compensation to the respondent-claimant, as aforementioned. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that assessment of compensation amount payable to respondent- claimant in this appeal is per-se erroneous and contrary to the available material as the claimant himself was responsible for accident yet the damages on account of medical expenses have been allowed to the tune of Rs. 7,94,019 whereas in a claim under Section 163-A compensation is to be awarded on structured formula basis contained in Schedule II to the Act to the maximum limit of Rs. 15,000 only. Learned counsel submits that crucial issue of rash and negligent driving, decided by learned Tribunal, is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Besides that, the learned counsel pleaded that the rate of interest allowed is excessive to the market rate and prayed for reduction in rate of interest from 8.5% to 6. 15,000 only. Learned counsel submits that crucial issue of rash and negligent driving, decided by learned Tribunal, is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Besides that, the learned counsel pleaded that the rate of interest allowed is excessive to the market rate and prayed for reduction in rate of interest from 8.5% to 6. Lastly, he submits that the impugned award cannot be sustained against appellant-insurer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and award. 5. Claimant, to support his case, adduced requisite evidence before the learned Tribunal besides producing numerous documents while from the side of non-claimants no evidence was tendered and in such circumstances the learned Tribunal had no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, learned Tribunal, after examining the gravity of injuries suffered by the respondent- claimant in the backdrop of his age, monthly income and loss in earning capacity due to permanent disability, moderately awarded Rs. 57,000 besides awarding Rs. 6,000 for mental agony. Likewise, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 7,94,019 as per medical bills for treatment and other amounts incurred in medical attendant and diet to the tune of Rs. 39,000. A sum of Rs. 9,000 for loss of income during treatment was also awarded quantifying total compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,05,619. Learned Tribunal, while deciding the issues framed, has discussed the evidence of injured-claimant in detail and has observed that mere filing of chargesheet against him cannot debar him from getting compensation and that cannot mean that accident had not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. For arriving at its conclusions the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [ (2011) 1 SCC 343 ] and other judgments. 6. The issue of claiming immunity to pay compensation is no more res-integra and the same has already been set at rest by catena of judgments of the Apex Court. After examining the impugned judgment and award, in my opinion, learned Tribunal has not committed any manifest error of law in deciding the claim partly in favour of claimant, who had claimed a sum of Rs. 40 Lakhs. Learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation, has also given due credence to the criteria of just and fair compensation. After examining the impugned judgment and award, in my opinion, learned Tribunal has not committed any manifest error of law in deciding the claim partly in favour of claimant, who had claimed a sum of Rs. 40 Lakhs. Learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation, has also given due credence to the criteria of just and fair compensation. Thus, looking to the permanent disability suffered by respondent- claimant in his teenage, coupled with the mental agony suffered by him, the compensation quantified and awarded by learned Tribunal in the matter is just and reasonable. The finding of learned Tribunal is also based on sound appreciation of evidence. 7. In view thereof, the appeal, being bereft of any merit, calls for no interference, and consequently the same is hereby dismissed.