Judgment Javed Iqbal Wani, J.—The instant appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the award dated 29.09.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in file No. 361/Claim whereby the injured-appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- with interest pendente lite till liquidation against the respondent No. 1, payable by respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. The amount of interim compensation is directed to be adjusted, accordingly. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal reveals that the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles, Act for the grant of compensation for the disability suffered by him in a road accident on 24.05.1995 at Gole Pulli Near Talab Tillo, Jammu due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. JKB/7437 being driven by respondent No. 2, while hitting the scooter of the appellant being on ride with one Rajinder Kumar. 3. The Tribunal upon entertaining the claim is stated to have proceeded ex-parte against respondents 1 and 2 herein, whereas Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 herein is stated to have contested the claim. 4. Following issued are stated to have framed by the Tribunal for determination:- 1. Whether an accident took place on 24.05.1998 at Gole Puli, Near Talab Tillo, Jammu due to the rash and negligent driving of tanker No. 7437-JKB by the respondent No. 2 in which the petitioners Rajinder Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries if so of what nature? OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of injuries sustained by them in said accident? If so to that amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent No. 3 and as such he is not liable to be indemnified? OPR-3. 4. Whether the offending vehicle was not being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of Insurance policy? OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-3 6. Relief. O.P. Parties. 5. OPR-3. 4. Whether the offending vehicle was not being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of Insurance policy? OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-3 6. Relief. O.P. Parties. 5. The appellant is stated to have led evidence to prove his case, whereas no evidence is stated to have been lead by the respondents for rebutting the claim of the appellant and whereupon Tribunal is stated to have passed the award dated 29.09.2004 (supra). 6. The appellant has sought to challenge the impugned award inter alia amongst other on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence adduced by the appellant and instead brushed aside the relevant evidence without taking into consideration the relevant documents and record placed on record before it. It is urged in the grounds that the Tribunal under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, while deciding the claim petition was not to put the appellant to strict proof of the facts being social welfare legislation. It is further urged in the grounds that the Tribunal while passing the impugned award contradicted itself with regard to another claimant, namely, Rajinder Kumar and has taken his income on assumption as daily wager at Rs. 3000/- per month and fixed the same at Rs. 4000/- per month while as, in the case of the appellant herein the Tribunal by the same order has observed the appellant not to be earning anything and the Tribunal is stated to have applied two yard sticks for determining the compensation of the similarly situated claimants. It is further urged that the Tribunal while passing the impugned award failed to take into consideration the permanent disability amounting to 17% suffered by the appellant and certified by the concerned Registrar to the effect that appellant has suffered fracture on both the bones of right leg and he has shortening of lower right limb. It is urged that the Tribunal while ignoring the said disability failed to award compensation to the appellant for the loss and agony suffered by him on account of such disability as also his incapacitation for future earnings/income. It is urged that the Tribunal while ignoring the said disability failed to award compensation to the appellant for the loss and agony suffered by him on account of such disability as also his incapacitation for future earnings/income. In the grounds it is further urged that the Tribunal while passing the impugned award is stated to have passed the same on conjectures and surmises while observing that the appellant failed to show that he was admitted in Govt. Medical College, when the fact remain that the disability certificate clearly showed that the appellant was admitted in the Hospital under MLC No. 1341 w.e.f., 24.05.1998 to 29.05.1998. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions raised and grounds urged the memo of appeal, whereas the counsel for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company defended the award mainly on the basis of reasoning given thereof by the Tribunal. 8. Even though, the respondents 1 and 2 had been summoned by this Court, yet in terms of order dated 09.06.2020, their presence was held not to be required in the matter and, accordingly, the summoning came to be dispensed with. 9. Perusal of the record reveals that the two claim petitions being File No. 360/claims and File No.361/claims came to be filed before the Tribunal by the victims of a vehicular accident, one amongst being the appellant herein (claimant in File No. 361/claims) and other being as co-victim/claimant in File No. 360/claims. Both the claims had been consolidated together on 17.02.2000 by the Tribunal for disposal. 10. Respondents 1 and 2 failed to appear before the Tribunal and, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte, whereas respondent No. 3 contested the claim petition. 11. Upon framing of as many as six issues, the issue Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 being common, have been taken for consideration and disposed of first by the Tribunal. 12. The issue relating to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is proved. The Insurance Company is stated to have not led any evidence or examined any witness in the matter. 13. Perusal of the record reveals that one Dr. Kulwant Sheikher has appeared as a witness of the claimant-appellant herein and deposed that the appellant had remained admitted in Ortho-IVth presently in Ortho-IInd under the MRD No. 179866 and MLC No. 1341 from 24.05.1998 to 29.05.1998 in Govt. 13. Perusal of the record reveals that one Dr. Kulwant Sheikher has appeared as a witness of the claimant-appellant herein and deposed that the appellant had remained admitted in Ortho-IVth presently in Ortho-IInd under the MRD No. 179866 and MLC No. 1341 from 24.05.1998 to 29.05.1998 in Govt. Medical College, Jammu. Upon examination on 28.09.2000, the said doctor has found the appellant herein having suffered fracture of both bones right leg with cut flexion of tenders of right little and right finger, and further shortening of the right lower limb with a permanent disability of 17%. The Tribunal however, observed that no such record has been placed by the appellant herein before it in regard to this. Whereas, a certificate issued by the Medical Record Department of GMC Hospital under the signature of Dr. Kulwant Shekhar (Registrar Ortho Deptt.) dated 28.09.2000, is on record certifying the admission of the appellant herein (Rakesh Kumar ) in Ortho. Unit-IV (presently OU-II) under MRD No. 179866 and MLC No. 1341 from 24.05.1998 to 29.05.1998. The said certificate (supra) also certifies fracture of both bones right leg with cut flexor tenders of right little and ring finger and also certifying that at present he has shortened of the right lower limb with flexion contracture of the right ring and little finger, and the doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 17%. The said certificate is on record and stands proved and even exhibited. 14. Perusal of the record reveals that the co-claimant/victim, namely, Rajinder Kumar placed on record of GMC bearing MRD No. 179867 and MLC No. 1340, reflecting his admission in the hospital on 24.05.1998 with discharge on 29.05.1998. The doctor witness, namely, Kulwant Sheikhar has deposed that the said Rajinder Kumar suffered permanent disability amounting to 35%. 15. The aforesaid medical record onus whereof admittedly stands discharged by the appellant-claimant has not been taken into account by the Tribunal and has discarded the same without any reason or justification. The certificate (supra) inexplicit terms reflect the date of admission of the appellant-claimant in the hospital w.e.f. 24.05.1998 to 29.05.1998, the date similar to date of admission the co-claimant, namely, Rajinder Kumar, who was admitted in the hospital on 24.05.1998. The certificate (supra) inexplicit terms reflect the date of admission of the appellant-claimant in the hospital w.e.f. 24.05.1998 to 29.05.1998, the date similar to date of admission the co-claimant, namely, Rajinder Kumar, who was admitted in the hospital on 24.05.1998. There was no evidence much less a credible or cogent before the Tribunal by the respondents contrary to the evidence led by the appellant as above, as such, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have not entertained and considered the said evidence of the claimant-appellant. Non-production of the hospital record by the appellant herein per se would not have discredited the evidence led by the appellant herein in the form of certificate (supra) dated 28.09.2000, issued by the Medial Record Department of the GMC, Hospital. The findings recorded by the Tribunal thus, in this regard that the appellant fail to produce the record of the hospital pales into insignificance, so also the observation that the Dr. Kulwant Shekhar had not treated the appellant–claimant and only has certified the nature of injuries of the appellant-claimant. 16. While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties, its functions being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. 17. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Anita Sharma and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2021 (1) JKJ[SC] 140 has at para 22 noticed as under:- “22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz4 wherein this Court reiterated that: “7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pickup van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [ (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] )” 18. Perusal of the record further reveals that the Tribunal further has failed to take into account the evidence lead by the appellant. The Tribunal as against the claim petition filed by the co-claimant, Rajinder Kumar without any lawful justification and no evidence contrary to the evidence lead by the appellant herein disbelieved the grounds on which the compensation came to be claimed by the appellant, even though the appellant had inexplicit while appearing as his own witness stated the fact of his being in a private employment at an Electronic Shop and after the accident having been rendered unable to conduct the said work/job inasmuch as, having incurred huge expenses on his treatment and having also not worked for six months on account of plaster on his leg. The Tribunal has also overlooked the evidence lead by the appellant qua his disability to not apply for any job on account of injury. In the cross-examination the said evidence of the appellant has not been dented or else disproved by the respondents. There was no evidence or proof before the Tribunal where under the claim and evidence of the appellant could have been discarded by the Tribunal that the monthly income of the appellant had been Rs. 10,000/- per month and that the appellant suffered a permanent disability of his leg to the extent of 17% duly certified and proved by an expert doctor, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant failed to lead any evidence viz-a-viz the expenses incurred by him on his treatment as claimed in the claim petition. 10,000/- per month and that the appellant suffered a permanent disability of his leg to the extent of 17% duly certified and proved by an expert doctor, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant failed to lead any evidence viz-a-viz the expenses incurred by him on his treatment as claimed in the claim petition. Further, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have disbelieve and discarded the contentions raised in the claim petition and evidence lead thereof by the appellant qua his monthly income, the disability suffered by him on account of the accident, inasmuch as, mental harassment and loss to the future income. 19. Perusal of the record would further reveal that the case of the appellant in essence had been pari materia with the case of his co-claimant, namely, Rajinder Kumar. The Tribunal admittedly, has failed to appreciate and consider the claim petition of the appellant supported by the credible and cogent evidence lead thereof, except the cost of treatment claimed by him in the claim petition for which the appellant admittedly, did not lead any evidence in support thereof. 20. A reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court being relevant and germane would be appropriate and advantageous hereunder passed in case titled as Anant vs. Pratap and another, 2018 (9) SCC 450 , wherein at paras 12 and 13 following is observed:- “12. In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries. 13. The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.” 21. In view of the aforesaid observations and analysis, the appellant herein can be held to be entitled to the following compensation:- 22. The monthly loss of earning capacity if the income of the appellant is fixed at Rs. 3000/- per month at par with the income of the co-claimant and keeping in view the increase in the further wages the monthly income of the appellant can also be fixed at Rs. 4000/- per month. The monthly loss of earning capacity if the income of the appellant is fixed at Rs. 3000/- per month at par with the income of the co-claimant and keeping in view the increase in the further wages the monthly income of the appellant can also be fixed at Rs. 4000/- per month. Appellant on account of his 17% permanent disability in his left leg would disable from seeking any Govt. employment or in any other public sector undertaking as a labourer or a daily wager etc. The disability sustained may not have disabled the appellant from seeking a job but seemingly would deem to have caused hardships in his movement as a movement is necessary in performing a job. As such, disability thus has caused loss of earning capacity to the appellant and in order to calculate the future loss of income a suitable multiplier is required to be selected which according to II schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is 12. Thus, the total loss of future income of the appellant herein comes to Rs. (4000 × 17) / 100 = Rs. 680 and it is rounded as Rs. 700/- (700 × 12 = Rs.8400/- per year, and Rs. 8400 × 12 = Rs. 1, 00,800/-. 23. Indisputably, the appellant though claimed the cost of treatment yet failed to produce any evidence thereof as such, no amount of compensation shall be payable to the appellant in this regard. 24. The appellant admittedly has suffered pain and suffering after the vehicular accident and same cannot be lost sight of, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- in this regard would be an appropriate compensation thereof as against the pain and suffering suffered by the appellant. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of amenity and pleasure of life, would be an appropriate amount of compensation payable to the appellant, in that, the appellant on account of the vehicular accident suffered injuries permanent in nature up to 17%. 25. In view of the discussion rendered above, the appeal succeeds and award dated 29.04.2004, passed by the Tribunal is set aside and total amount of compensation to the appellant is worked out hereunder:- 1 Loss of future income (8400 x 12 ) Rs. 1,00,800/- 2 Pains and sufferings Rs. 15,000/- 3 Loss of Amenity and Pleasure of Life Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 1,35,800/- 26. 1,00,800/- 2 Pains and sufferings Rs. 15,000/- 3 Loss of Amenity and Pleasure of Life Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 1,35,800/- 26. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondent No.3 minus the amount of compensation, if any, paid to the appellant with interest except on loss of future income @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization. 27. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.