JUDGMENT This appeal by the National Insurance company Limited (hereinafter “the insurer”) filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 13th May, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter “the Tribunal”) in file No.612/Claim titled Sanjeev Sharma v. Ramesh Chander and others. 2. The Tribunal has awarded the claimant-respondent No.1 a sum of Rs. 4,55,600/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum for the injuries and permanent disablement suffered by the claimant in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver-respondent No.3. 3. Before proceeding to deal with the grounds of challenge urged in the appeal, it would be worthwhile to notice few facts. On 26.12.2001, at about 7.30 p.m. when the claimant accompanied by his friend Rohit Sharma were on evening walk on Circular Road, the offending vehicle i.e. Auto bearing Regd. No.K02M-4695 driven by respondent No.3 rashly and negligently hit the claimant from behind. As a result whereof, the claimant sustained multiple injuries including fracture of right ankle and left leg. The claimant statedly remained in the hospital for two months and claims to have spent Rs. 3-4 lakh on his treatment. The claimant was operated in the hospital. Since the injuries resulting into permanent disablement of the claimant to the extent of 55% were sustained in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.3, as such, respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,80,000/- from the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. The claim petition was contested by the insurer only. The driver and the owner chose not to contest the petition and were, thus, set ex-parte. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether an accident occurred on 26.12.2001 at Circular Road by rash and negligent driving of offending Auto No.JK02M-4695 being driven in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Sanjeev Sharma sustained grievous injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is prove in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether an accident occurred on 26.12.2001 at Circular Road by rash and negligent driving of offending Auto No.JK02M-4695 being driven in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Sanjeev Sharma sustained grievous injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is prove in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and drove the vehicle in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy; if so who? OPR-3 4. Relief. OP Parties.” 5. With a view to discharge the burden of issue Nos. 1,2 and 4, the claimant besides himself entering the witness box also recorded the statement of PW-Rohit Sharma and PW-Dr. Shiv Kumar. The insurer produced RW- S.K. Wali, the manager of the insurer as its sole witness in rebuttal. 6. The Tribunal in light of the evidence brought on record by the parties, held the issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 proved in favour of the claimant and against the insurer, and the issue No.3, the onus whereof was on the insurer, was however, held not proved by the insurer. The Tribunal taking note of the proof of income of the claimant and the permanent disablement suffered by him came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 4,55,600/- along with interest would be fair and just compensation for the injuries and disablement and loss of earning suffered by the claimant. 7. The insurer is aggrieved and has challenged the award, inter alia, on the following grounds:- i) The Tribunal has committed an error in computing the compensation payable to the claimant and the compensation awarded is exorbitant and in violation of the settled parameters laid down in this regard by the Supreme Court. ii) Since there was no FIR lodged with respect to the accident, therefore, the story projected by the claimant that he suffered injuries in the motor vehicular accident involving the offending vehicle is highly doubtful and could not have been accepted by the Tribunal. iii) The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license and, therefore, insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner. 8. iii) The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license and, therefore, insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and perused the record, I am of the view that the impugned award, which is just and fair by all standards, does not call for any interference. 9. It may be noted that the claimant has brought on record sufficient evidence to prove that he suffered multiple injuries to his body on 26.12.2001 when he was hit by the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.3 in rash and negligent manner. The statement of the claimant is supported by Mr. Rohit Sharma, who, at the relevant point of time, was walking on the Circular Road along with the claimant and had seen the accident occurring before him. In the absence of contrary evidence brought on record by the insurer, the Tribunal had not option but to accept the oral testimony of the claimant and his witness-Rohit Sharma and conclude that the claimant had suffered multiple injuries to his body on account of the accident, which took place on 26.12.2001 on the Circular Road, involving the offending vehicle. 10. With regard to issue No.3, the onus whereof was on the insurer, I find no illegality or infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that in the absence of any evidence led by the insurer on the issue, the insurer had failed to discharge the onus. 11. That apart, the claimants had produced the attested photocopy of the driving license of respondent No.3. A perusal whereof would show that respondent No.3 was holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the LMV including motorcycle with gear. This document i.e. driving license brought on record has not been denied by the insurer. The Tribunal, therefore, was correct in holding that the insurer had failed to prove issue No.3 by leading any evidence. 12. This brings us to the plea of the insurer that the compensation award has not been correctly computed. As per the medical certificate issued by Dr. Shiv Kumar, the attending Orthopedician, the claimant had suffered 55% permanent disability. The expert witness has also given the details of nature of injuries and fractures suffered by the claimant. 12. This brings us to the plea of the insurer that the compensation award has not been correctly computed. As per the medical certificate issued by Dr. Shiv Kumar, the attending Orthopedician, the claimant had suffered 55% permanent disability. The expert witness has also given the details of nature of injuries and fractures suffered by the claimant. From the statement of Dr. Shiv Kumar, it is abundantly clear that on account of his permanent disablement and the nature of injuries and fracture suffered by him, it has been very difficult for him to lead a normal life. As opined by the doctor, the claimant would have difficulty in doing heavy labour job and would also feel pain life long due to the injuries suffered. 13. The claimant claimed his income as Rs. 7,000/- per month but the same in the absence of conclusive proof has been taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,000 per month. As per the oral evidence led, the claimant was doing a private business but has not brought on record any evidence to substantiate the income. In any case, income of Rs. 6,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the higher side. The Tribunal has also correctly taken the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant at 45%, though, the total physical permanent disability suffered by the claimant, as was certified by the doctor, was 55%. Given the fact that the claimant underwent major surgeries and implant, grant of Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 60,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of amenities of life, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be exorbitant. 14. Viewed from any angle, compensation of Rs. 4,55,600/- granted by the Tribunal in the instant case is just and fair compensation with which no interference by this Court is called for. 15. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly, dismissed. Registry to release the amount, if deposited by the appellant, in favour of the claimant after proper identification and verification as per the terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.