Judgment Puneet Gupta, J.—The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the Award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar on the following grounds:- a) The award dated 19.11.2015, passed by the Tribunal is bad in law as the Tribunal has not decided the compensation amount in accordance with the Schedule (I) attached to the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 but as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. b) The quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side. c) The liability of the appellant, if any, to pay compensation to the victim is restricted one as per the Policy. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has indeed argued the appeal in consonance with the averments contained in the appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent No.1 has submitted that the Tribunal has passed the order in accordance with law. The compensation awarded is ‘Just’ in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The record of the Tribunal is also before the Court for perusal. 4. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,52,888/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition till realization of the amount in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1 herein. 5. Before proceeding further, it is profitable to place on record the claim raised by the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. The claimant/respondent No.1 preferred claim petition before the Tribunal with the averments that he had incurred permanent disablement as he suffered the injuries while the vehicle (Tipper) bearing No. JK01E-1910 was in use at the time of accident on 01.06.2008. The claimant was engaged as labourer in loading/unloading of stones with the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The claimant suffered injuries on his left hand as a result he had to undergo treatment at different hospitals. The claimants suffered amputation of the left, middle and ring finger. The Tribunal held the claimant entitled for aforesaid amount after going through the evidence that came on record. 6. The first question which requires determination is whether the Tribunal erred in granting compensation to the claimant as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and not the Employees Compensation Act as stated in appeal. The appellant while filing the appeal has admitted that the claimant was entitled to avail the remedy under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act or the labour law. The appellant while filing the appeal has admitted that the claimant was entitled to avail the remedy under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act or the labour law. The claimant has opted to avail the remedy under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act though he could avail the remedy under the Labour Law as he was performing the duties as labourer at the time of accident. Once the claimant opted to avail the remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act, the consequence of the same is that the case of the claimant is to be dealt with under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under the other Act. The argument raised by the learned counsel is without any basis and stands rejected. 7. The next issue which is required to be determined is: whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is ‘just’ in the facts and circumstances of the case. The amount to which the claimant may be entitled to has to be as per the spirit of the Motor Vehicles Act and not otherwise. There can neither be windfall or bounty nor there should be pittance to the claimant in case he is to be awarded the compensation for the injuries suffered by him as a result of accident. The insurer is not normally entitled to challenge the compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal. The insurer can take the defences as available to it only after the permission is granted by the Tribunal for the same and not otherwise. In the present case, the insurance company though has filed reply to the claim petition yet failed to apply and obtain permission before the Tribunal for taking defences available as per the Motor Vehicles Act. Not only that, it is also evident from the record that the appellant was set ex-parte during the course of proceedings and failed to cross-examine the witnesses who appeared before the Tribunal in support of the claim petition. The Court however proceeds to decide the argument of the appellant that the amount awarded to the claimant/respondent No.1 is in excess of what was due to the claimant and therefore cannot be said that the claimant has been awarded ‘just’ compensation by the Tribunal. 8. In Kajal Versus Jagdish Chand & ors. The Court however proceeds to decide the argument of the appellant that the amount awarded to the claimant/respondent No.1 is in excess of what was due to the claimant and therefore cannot be said that the claimant has been awarded ‘just’ compensation by the Tribunal. 8. In Kajal Versus Jagdish Chand & ors. (Civil Appeal 735 of 2020 decided on 5.2.2020) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the appeal increased the compensation from 11 lacs, awarded by the Tribunal, to 62 lacs to the girl-claimant, who had suffered physically and had even acute mental problem due to the accident, after taking into consideration various factors. 9. The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has held that the claimant suffered injuries as a result of negligence and carelessness of the driver of the vehicle. The evidence produced by the claimant in respect of Issue No.1 framed before the Tribunal regarding the accident taking place due to the careless and negligent driving of the driver before the Tribunal was not rebutted by the respondents. This Court finds no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal. Otherwise too, the appellant has also not for all practical purposes disputed the accident. 10. The learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation in favour of the claimant therein has taken note of the pronouncements of the Apex Court. It may be relevant to take into consideration the nature of disability incurred by the claimant due to the accident. The claimant has remained admitted in the Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar and thereafter in SKIMS, Srinagar for a period of more than one month and was subjected to the surgeries. Dr. Khursheed Ahmad Kangoo, Associate Professor, B&J Hospital, Srinagar has deposed before the Tribunal and has also examined the claimant during the course of his examination as a witness before the Tribunal. The Doctor has examined the claimant at the initial stage in B&J Hospital, Srinagar and has stated that the case of the claimant was a case of fresh injury of left hand with loss of third and fourth fingers and exposed tendons and bone of the left hand. The wound debridement and Kwire fixation was done to the patient in the said hospital. The patient was advised for plastic surgical consultation at SKIMS, Soura. The wound debridement and Kwire fixation was done to the patient in the said hospital. The patient was advised for plastic surgical consultation at SKIMS, Soura. As per the witness, the petitioner has 55% permanent disablement of left upper limb and being labourer the disability is to definitely affect his capacity to earn. The discharge summary certificate issued by the SKIMS, Srinagar is also on the record. The Tribunal has held that the evidence on record fully substantiates the issue of the claimant having received injuries on the left hand. The appellate court also finds no reason to disturb the findings of the learned Tribunal on this aspect of the case. 11. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation has held that the claimant while having permanent disability of 55% his earning capacity stands effected to the extent of 90%. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no reason for the Tribunal to reach such finding. In other words, the 90% disability in earning capacity of the claimant does not co-relate with the disability of 55% suffered by him. It may be mentioned herein that the certificate of disability showed 40% of disability at the initial stage. The disablement of left upper limb was found to the extent of 55% during the proceedings of the claim petition by the doctor at the time of examination of the claimant on 20.08.2011. The assessment made by the Tribunal that the claimant had suffered 55% permanent disability is not unjustified or unreasonable which may require any interference in the appeal on that score. As far as the Tribunal holding that the loss of earning capacity of the claimant as labourer cannot be less than 90% the same cannot be sustained keeping in view that the claimant who is labourer had suffered the injury of two fingers of left hand only. The 90% disability means almost complete inability of the petitioner to carry his vocation which cannot be held to be the case in the present matter. There cannot be calculation with mathematical precision as to how much the claimant can be said to have suffered qua the earning capacity as a result of permanent disability incurred by him due to accident. However, keeping in view the nature of injury received and the occupation of the claimant the loss of earning capacity of the victim is assessed at 65%. 12. However, keeping in view the nature of injury received and the occupation of the claimant the loss of earning capacity of the victim is assessed at 65%. 12. Now taking stock of the actual compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads to the claimant, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant being labourer as Rs.3000/-per month. The Court does not find any fault in the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal has deducted 1/5th of the income of the claimant for his personal expenditure keeping in view the fact that the claimant had six dependents including his brothers. There is no question of taking into consideration dependency factor in the present case as the claimant has suffered personal disability and is not the case of death where the dependency factor is to be taken into consideration and therefore the deduction factor cannot sustain. 13. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11 taking into consideration the age of the claimant and has added 15% to the future income which the claimant could have earned. On the above account, the compensation has been awarded to the tune of Rs.3,27,888/-. 14. The manner in which the Tribunal has calculated compensation on the aspect under discussion requires correction in the appeal. Taking earning of the claimant as Rs. 3000/- per month, the loss of future earning of the claimant is assessed at 40% instead of 15% as the petitioner has no fixed income with loss of earning capacity as 65% and applying multiplier of 11 keeping in view the age of the petitioner, as rightly done by the Tribunal, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to comes to Rs. 3,60,360/- the figure being rounded at Rs. 3,60,000/-. 15. In addition, the claimant has been awarded Rs.50,000/- on account of medicines, transportation, food etc. during his hospitalization. Though the claimant has not enclosed any medical bills with the claim petition yet it can be fathomed that the amount awarded by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be said to be in any way excessive or unjust. The claimant who is labourer is not supposed to be that much meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. The claimant has remained in the hospital on two occasions for a period of more than one month and must have incurred that much of expenses. The claimant who is labourer is not supposed to be that much meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. The claimant has remained in the hospital on two occasions for a period of more than one month and must have incurred that much of expenses. No interference is required on the compensation awarded on the above account. 16. The injuries suffered by the claimant could require further medical expenditure cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal has also awarded future medical expenses to the claimant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- which appears to be just one and needs no modification. 17. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant for the loss of amenities of life. Without doubt, the person who suffers permanent disability cannot lead a normal life and any amount of compensation cannot make the life of the injured normal one as it was before the accident. The compensation is only the means to grant some support for the loss he has suffered with which he is expected to live for the rest of his life. The amount awarded under this head has to commensurate with the injury and its impact on the claimant. The court is of the view that the Tribunal has granted compensation somewhat in excess of what is due to the claimant and accordingly the compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.80,000/-. 18. Lastly, the claimant has been awarded Rs.25000/- for the pain and sufferings due to the severe disablement of the claimant. To say the least, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be held to be unreasonable requiring any modification under the said head also. The total compensation assessed in appeal is Rs.5,65,000/-. No fault is found either in the interest awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is only liable to compensate the claimant as the appellant has not brought evidence on record of the Tribunal that the liability of the appellant is limited one as pleaded in the appeal. 19. Thus, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is maintained and the difference that occurs in the amount awarded by the Tribunal and this court being not significant one and the claimant having not filed any appeal against the award the claimant will not be entitled to the difference of two amounts. 20. 19. Thus, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is maintained and the difference that occurs in the amount awarded by the Tribunal and this court being not significant one and the claimant having not filed any appeal against the award the claimant will not be entitled to the difference of two amounts. 20. In view of the discussion made above, the court does not find any reason to vary the compensation amount awarded along with interest to the claimant to be paid by the appellant herein by the Tribunal though this court has dealt with the compensation issue in certain respects differently, as discussed above, from the one by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. The respondent No.1/claimant is entitled to the release of balance amount, if any, on the filing of application by him before the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar. The record of Tribunal be sent back if attached with the appeal.