JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 17.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (“Tribunal” for short) in file No. 328 titled “Gopal Krishan vs Union of India and others” whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,22,800/-along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of respondent No.1( hereinafter referred to as the “claimant”) 2. The impugned award has been assailed primarily on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and has erroneously held that the vehicle owned by the appellants and driven by its driver was involved in the alleged accident. Second, that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding exorbitant compensation to the claimant even when there was no specific evidence led by the claimant to prove his actual loss of income due to the injuries suffered in the incident. 3. With a view to better appreciate the arguments of Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI, appearing for the appellants, it would be necessary to first notice the issues framed by the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties. i. Whether an accident occurred on 28.02.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. MN-01, 5280 in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Gopal Krishan sustained grievous injuries ? OPP ii. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? iii. Relief. 4. With a view to discharge the onus of proof placed on him, the claimant, besides entering the witness box himself, also examined G.N.Dogra, Ravi Verma and Dr. Rajhesh Gupta as his witnesses. In rebuttal, the appellants produced one Brij Kumar as their witness. 5. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence on record, held the issue No.1 proved in favour of the claimant and computed the compensation payable taking into consideration the legal parameters laid down by the Apex Court in various precedents rendered from time to time. 6. The appellants assails the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 and contends that given the evidence, that was brought on record by the claimant, it cannot be said that the claimant has fully discharged the burden of issue No.1. 7. 6. The appellants assails the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 and contends that given the evidence, that was brought on record by the claimant, it cannot be said that the claimant has fully discharged the burden of issue No.1. 7. From the testimony of the injured Gopal and his witness G.N.Dogra, it is clear that the accident, in which the claimant got seriously injured, happened due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2. It has also come on record that regarding the accident, FIR was registered in the concerned Police Station. 8. The respondents have led oral evidence and have recorded the statement of Brij Kumar and driver of the offending vehicle Hanumanth R. Lomani in rebuttal. The best witness to rebut the claim of the claimant could have been the Investigating Officer, but the same was not examined by the appellants. 9. Having regard to the oral testimony of the claimant and his witness G.N.Dogra and also the fact that FIR with regard to the accident involving the offending vehicle was registered in the Police Station concerned, I am not persuaded to agree with the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the claimant had failed to prove that the accident, in which he got injured, had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2. 10. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has reasonably fixed the same. The claimant is proved to be a business man aged 42 years old and was earning Rs.6000/-per month. As per the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Gupta, he has suffered disablement of the right leg to the extent of 27%. The Tribunal has taken the loss of earning capacity also as 27%. Although the evidence on record is not clear as to what type of business the claimant was engaged in and in what manner his earning capacity would be affected by the disablement, yet having regard to the fact that a businessman running a shop is expected to be physically fit to move around in the shop, I find that 27% disablement of the right leg would definitely impair his earning capacity to the aforesaid extent. 11. 11. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion, in the facts and circumstances of the case and has concluded that because of 27% disablement suffered by the claimant, his earning capacity too would be impaired to the extent of 27%. 12. I see no reason or justification to interfere with the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. No other error in computing the compensation was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. 13. In view of the above, this appeal is found to be devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the amount of compensation, if deposited in the Registry of this Court, be released in favour of the claimant in terms of the impugned award.