JUDGEMENT 1. Appeal U/S 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by appellant against impugned judgment and award dated 25.09.2010 passed in File No._/claim titled Subash Chand Sharma v. Puran Singh & Ors. For enhancement of the awarded amount of Rs. 79,200/- passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred as MACT Jammu). 2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/award, appellant has assailed it's legality, correctness and propriety and sought it's modification/ enhancement on the following grounds:- (i) that the appellant (petitioner) suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 16.05.2004 at about 10:45 a.m. near SIDCO Industrial Complex Samba, a Claim Petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jammu on 16.09.2005 against the respondents who are the registered owner and driver of Tractor bearing Engine No. 43 1052/00P 2491 and Chassis No. QWTA 40600000180 wherein it was claimed that Respondent No. 2 driver of the said vehicle while driving the offending vehicle in a most rash, careless and negligent manner hit the Scooter bearing No. JK02E-0868 near Samba on which appellant was sitting as a pillion rider as a consequence whereof appellant suffered injuries and thereafter was shifted to Government Medical College Jammu where appellant remained admitted upto 31.05.2004, 12.08.2004, 14.04.2005 and discharged on 25.04.2005, further got admitted in Ortho ward in ASCOM Sidhra and was discharged on 10.08.2005; (ii) that appellant (petitioner) claimed compensation on the counts, viz.; (i) Rs. 1,50,000/- for medicines and surgery, (ii) Rs. 15,000/- for having spent for consumption of special diet, (iii) Rs. 10,000/- incurred for M.R.I., C.T. Scan and X-Rays, (iv) Rs. 25,000/-incurred on account of keeping attendants, (v) Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of loss of future income, (vi) Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of pain and sufferings and for mental agony to be suffered in future, (vii) Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of future medical expenses & (viii) Rs. 15,000/- as transport expenses; (iii) that the appellant at the time of the filing of the claim petition was 43 years of age and was working as Mate/Laborer and was earning on average of Rs. 10,000/- per month, respondents appeared and filed objections to the claim petition, appellant was declared permanently disabled by the Medical Board vide certificate dated 10.07.2009 as a consequence whereof the Tribunal below vide Order dated 21.08.2009 granted interim compensation of Rs. 10,000/- per month, respondents appeared and filed objections to the claim petition, appellant was declared permanently disabled by the Medical Board vide certificate dated 10.07.2009 as a consequence whereof the Tribunal below vide Order dated 21.08.2009 granted interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under No Fault Liability to the appellant; (iv) that to prove the issues before the Tribunal, appellant (petitioner) examined himself alongwith his three witnesses viz.; PW Vijay Kumar, PW Tara Chand & PW Dr. I.K. Wangnoo, while as respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal, however, the Tribunal vide Judgment and Award dated 25.09.2010 awarded less amount of compensation of Rs. 79,200/- in favour of the appellant; (v) that the appellant has not been awarded just compensation as such the appellant is aggrieved of the award passed by the Tribunal below, moreso the interest on the future loss of income has not been awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the award; (vi) that the Tribunal despite having accepted the income of appellant as Rs. 6000/- per month, incorrectly scaled it down to Rs. 5000/- per month as against Rs. 10,000/- per month which was claimed in the claim petition and remained un-rebutted, also took into account permanent disablement at 5% incorrectly; (vii) that the quantum awarded on account of loss of future income has been incorrectly calculated and meager amount had been awarded with further observation that loss of future income shall not earn interest, is against the settled law; (viii) that the quantum awarded on account of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life is also too meager in view of the long admission and treatment taken by the appellant for complicated and grievous injuries, no sum has been awarded for future treatment of appellant, as the appellant has been rendered incapable of earning out of the pursuit which he was carrying prior to the date of accident. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, Ld. Tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition. 1. Whether an accident occurred on 16.05.2004 at SIDCO Industrial Complex (NAZAD) Samba due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor bearing Engine No. 431052/00P 2491 Chassis No. QTWA 40600000180 in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Subash Chand Sharma sustained grievous injuries? OPP 2. Tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition. 1. Whether an accident occurred on 16.05.2004 at SIDCO Industrial Complex (NAZAD) Samba due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor bearing Engine No. 431052/00P 2491 Chassis No. QTWA 40600000180 in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Subash Chand Sharma sustained grievous injuries? OPP 2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief?.............................................................................. OP Parties. 4. Ld. Counsel for the parties noted down the issues. To prove the averments of the claim petition, appellant (petitioner) examined himself alongwith his three (03) witnesses namely, PW Vijay Kumar, PW Tara Chand & PW Dr. I.K. Wangnoo. In rebuttal, respondents have not led any evidence at all. Before rendering the findings on the issues framed in the claim petition, it is pertinent to give a brief resume of the evidence led by the appellant (petitioner). Relevant portions of the testimonies of appellant & his witnesses is summarized hereunder:- 5. APPELLANT'S (PETITIONER'S) EVIDENCE Petitioner Subash Chand Sharma has narrated that on 16.05.2004 at 11 a.m., he was on way from SIDCO Complex towards Samba City on a Scooter as a pillion rider when an incoming tractor being driven by erring driver rashly and negligently collided with petitioner's scooter as a result he received injuries on his chest and shoulder-joint. Because of accident his left rib got fractured, so-much-so left shoulder too sustained fracture. Petitioner himself was riding a pillion rider on Scooter No. JK02E-0868. He was removed to Samba hospital wherefrom came to be referred to GMC Jammu where he remained admitted for around 12 days. There his left shoulder came to be operated upon and a rod was implanted. He spent Rs. 2/2 lacs on his treatment. He was working as conductor thereby earning Rs. 10,000/- but because of occurrence his earning capacity has considerably diminished. On cross-examination narrated that he does not remember registration number of the scooter though scooter was being driven by his brother-in-law Balak Ram. As much as his own sister Rani Devi was too was travelling on that very scooter. He and Balak Ram while on way back home found Rani Devi ahead of them on main road waiting for conveyance. On cross-examination narrated that he does not remember registration number of the scooter though scooter was being driven by his brother-in-law Balak Ram. As much as his own sister Rani Devi was too was travelling on that very scooter. He and Balak Ram while on way back home found Rani Devi ahead of them on main road waiting for conveyance. Then contradicted himself by testifying that Balak Ram and his wife were already riding on scooter when they found petitioner waiting for conveyance at SIDCO Complex so he took lift from Balak Ram and sat on that scooter. Because of accident Balak Ram and his wife they too received injuries and remained admitted in the hospital. Denied suggestion that tractor was lying stationary and it was scooter driver who drove it rashly and negligently. The tractor driver abruptly committed side cut as a result tractor had collision with the scooter. He has not kept record of contractor ship though has been working as laborer thereby earning Rs. 6,000/- PM and from contractorship he would earn Rs. 4,000/- thereby conceded that he was working as laborer at SIDCO Complex where he was taking job of loading and unloading vehicles. Occurrence took place on 16.05.2004. Again admitted that respondent paid him Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. PW Vijay Kumar narrated that on 16.05.2004 at about 11 a.m. when petitioner was travelling on scooter as pillion rider which scooter was being driven by another person and witness himself after completing morning duty was waiting for conveyance when the occurrence took place and scooter, on which the petitioner was travelling, was hit by the offending tractor as a result petitioner and scooter driver both fell down and received number of injuries. It was Chamail Singh who happened to be the driver of the tractor who was R/o Samba. Petitioner was earning Rs. 3/4 hundred per day but after the occurrence his earning capacity considerably diminished. On cross-examination narrated that petitioner is related to him but he does remember the name of the person who was riding the scooter. He witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 40/ 50 meters. Petitioner was earning Rs. 3/4 hundred per day but after the occurrence his earning capacity considerably diminished. On cross-examination narrated that petitioner is related to him but he does remember the name of the person who was riding the scooter. He witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 40/ 50 meters. PW Tara Chand narrated that on 16.05.2004, after finishing duties at SIDCO complex witness was on way towards Samba when scooter being driven by its driver on its own side that was carrying the petitioner Subash Chand was hit by a tractor which was being driven by its driver on wrong side as a result not only damaged was caused to the scooter but all the three persons travelling on the scooter received injuries who were shifted to the hospital in another light motor vehicle which was passing through it. That the occurrence took place due to negligence of tractor driver. Scooter driver was on way towards Samba. Admitted that scooter was not being driven by petitioner rather someone else was driving it. Petitioner was sitting on the last seat and besides him two other persons were also on the scooter including the driver. He was neither examined in the criminal court nor was called by police to give statement. There is a turn at the place of the occurrence. Denied suggestion that scooter was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver as a result accident took place. That he was the first person to see the occurrence. PW Dr. I.K Wangnoo stated that as per certificate dated 10.07.2009 on court file he, examined petitioner Subash Chand Sharma, alongwith two other members of the Board comprising of Dr. Mukhtyar Ahmed M.O. and Dr. S.R. Mughal CMO. The petitioner was examined and found an old operated case of rotator cuff injury left with stiffness left shoulder with healed fracture ribs and his permanent disability was assessed at 5%. The certificate is true and correct. It is exhibited as ExPW-I. With this disability petitioner cannot do the job of a laborer and the disability will hamper his day today work. On cross examination narrated that he has not treated the petitioner. 5% disability is of the particular limb and now this disability cannot be reduced because it is permanent and no amount of treatment will decrease this disability. On cross examination narrated that he has not treated the petitioner. 5% disability is of the particular limb and now this disability cannot be reduced because it is permanent and no amount of treatment will decrease this disability. Such injury could be caused by other means like falling violently on an out stretched hand. Treatment meted by the petitioner is available at GMC Jammu. 6. Heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, scanned the evidence putforth by the appellant (petitioner) carefully. In the backdrop of what has been stated above, the issue wise findings are rendered as under:- 7. ISSUES NO. 1 This issues is to the effect, "Whether an accident occurred on 16.05.2004 at SIDCO Industrial Complex (NAZAD) Samba due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor bearing Engine No. 431052/00P 2491 Chassis No. QTWA 40600000180 in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Subash Chand Sharma sustained grievous injuries"? OPP Burden of proof of this issues lies on appellant (petitioner). To prove Issue No. 1, appellant has examined himself alongwith two witnesses PW-Vijay Kumar & PW-Tara Chand. Appellant while corroborating the averments of the claim petition, has putforth evidence before the Tribunal that on 16.05.2004 at 11 a.m. he was on way from SIDCO Complex towards Samba City on a Scooter bearing Registration No. JK02E-0868 as a pillion rider, when an incoming tractor being driven by erring driver rashly and negligently collided with petitioner's scooter as a result he received injuries on his chest and shoulder-joint, because of accident his left rib got fractured, so-much-so, left shoulder too sustained fracture, he was removed to Samba Hospital wherefrom came to be referred to GMC Jammu where he remained admitted for around 12 days, there his left shoulder came to be operated upon and a rod was implanted. PWs Vijay Kumar & Tara Chand in one voice, unequivocally have corroborated the evidence of appellant (petitioner) by deposing, that on 16.05.2004 at 11 a.m. when petitioner was travelling on a scooter as pillion rider, the said scooter was hit by offending tractor driven by one Chamail Singh, as a result, petitioner and scooter fell down and received injuries. It is apt to reiterate here, that in rebuttal, respondents have not led any evidence at all to disprove the claim and evidence of appellant (petitioner). It is apt to reiterate here, that in rebuttal, respondents have not led any evidence at all to disprove the claim and evidence of appellant (petitioner). In view of the aforesaid discussion, appellant (petitioner) by leading cogent, trustworthy, corroborative, credible, overwhelming and inspiring evidence has proved that an accident occurred on 16.05.2004 at SIDCO Industrial Complex (NAZAD) Samba due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor bearing Engine No. 431052/00P 2491 Chassis No. QTWA 40600000180 in the hands of erring driver in which he sustained grievous injuries. Issue No. 1 stands proved and decided in favour of the appellant as against respondents, and the Ld. Tribunal too has recorded correct finding in deciding the Issue No. 1. Therefore, I don't find any reason to interfere with or to upset the reasoned finding rendered by the Ld. Tribunal, which stands upheld/affirmed. 8. ISSUE NO. 2 This issue is to the effect, "If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom"? OPP Burden of proof of this issue lies on the appellant. Before returning finding on this issue, it is pertinent to discuss the law regarding the assessment of compensation to a victim of an accident. In this regard, law has been settled by an authoritative pronouncement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 [[1]R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- (A) Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), Sec. 110-B-Accident-Compensation-Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages-What constitute. "While fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the 'normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." (Para 9) (B) Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), S. 110B-Compensation-Determination-Some guess work is involved. "In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards". (Para 12) In the backdrop of the law laid down in the case law (Supra) for assessment of compensation to a victim of an accident, the compensation in favour of appellant (petitioner) in the case in hand, is to be assessed and awarded on the strength of evidence on record under the following heads:- (A) PECUNIARY DAMAGES (B) NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES (A) PECUNIARY DAMAGES Pecuniary damages can be classified under the following heads:- (I) Compensation on account of total loss of future earnings:- It is settled law that for awarding the compensation, the tribunal has to fix the monthly income of the appellant (petitioner) at the time of accident, the percentage (% age) of his permanent disablement and its effect on his future income and the age of the petitioner for calculating appropriate multiplier. Regarding the assessment of monthly income, appellant (petitioner) in his claim petition has claimed that his monthly income at the time of accident from his occupation of Mate and arranging laborers and himself carrying on the loading and unloading of goods at SIDCO Industrial Complex Samba was Rs. 10000/-. Appellant (petitioner) in his deposition before the Tribunal though in his examination-in-chief has stated that his monthly income was Rs. 10000/-. Appellant (petitioner) in his deposition before the Tribunal though in his examination-in-chief has stated that his monthly income was Rs. 10000/- from his occupation of Mate/Contractor ship and his labor work, while in cross-examination he has categorically stated that he has not kept any record of contractor ship from where he would earn Rs. 4000/-, but has admitted that he was earning Rs. 6000/- per month from his own labor work. It is profitable to reiterate here, that the appellant (petitioner) does not belong to organized sector of skilled labor and is not even working in a Govt. or Semi Govt. Agency. By his occupation of labor work, appellant (petitioner) cannot be expected to be assured of his monthly income and there is even no guarantee that every time he would earn Rs. 10000/- or Rs. 6000/-, applying the guess work and some amount of sympathy linked with the appellant (petitioner) the monthly income of appellant (petitioner) is fixed at Rs. 5000/-, and it is on this income, the future loss of income of the appellant (petitioner) is to be assessed. To assess the percentage (% age) of disability, it is profitable to reiterate, that PW Dr. I.K. Wangnoo alongwith two other members of the board comprising of Dr. Mukhtyar Ahmed MO and Dr. S.R. Mughal CMO have examined appellant/petitioner, and as per their certificate dated 10.07.2009 (EXPW-I) appended with the court file, they have found the appellant (petitioner) having old operated case of rotator cuff injury with stiffness left shoulder with healed fracture ribs and the permanent disability of appellant (petitioner) has been assessed at 5% of permanent nature. While calculating the age of petitioner, it is apt to reiterate here, that the petitioner in his claim petition has reflected his age at the time of accident as 42 years. In a recent judgment titled [2]National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ], while calculating the multiplier to be adopted by the Tribunal and the Courts, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 44 of the judgment at page 5173, 5174 held as under:- 44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 ([3] AIR 2009 SC 3104 , para 21) of the said judgment. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 ([3] AIR 2009 SC 3104 , para 21) of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below:- "42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years) reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." Ratio of the judgment (Supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly clear, that for the age of 42 years, multiplier of 14 should be used. Therefore, in the case in hand, multiplier of 14 is applicable. Keeping in view the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 5000/- his age as 42 years at the time of accident and 5% disability suffered by him which has totally lost the future earning capacity of the petitioner, the monthly future loss of income to the petitioner when calculated becomes Rs. 5000 x 5/100 = Rs. 250/-. When this monthly income of Rs. 250/- is multiplied by 12 it gives the annual future loss of income to the petitioner which when calculated comes to Rs. 250 x 12 = Rs. 3000/-. For determining the total future loss of income of the petitioner, the future annual loss in the income of the petitioner is to be multiplied by the appropriate multiplier of 14 fixed in the case in hand. Therefore, the total future loss in the income of petitioner when calculated comes to (future annual loss of income x multiplier) i.e. Rs. 3000 x 14 = Rs. 42000/-. (II) Medical Expenses:- Appellant (petitioner) has appended medical bills with the claim petition to the Sum of Rs. Therefore, the total future loss in the income of petitioner when calculated comes to (future annual loss of income x multiplier) i.e. Rs. 3000 x 14 = Rs. 42000/-. (II) Medical Expenses:- Appellant (petitioner) has appended medical bills with the claim petition to the Sum of Rs. 28, 141/- to which he is entitled to the said full amount. (B) NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES The non-pecuniary damages can be classified under the following heads:- (I) Damages for mental & physical shock, pain, sufferings already suffered or likely to be suffered in future. It is pertinent to mention here, that whenever a Tribunal is to fix amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves guess work, some hypothetical consideration and some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. Appellant (Petitioner) has deposed, that due to the accident, he has received injuries on his chest and shoulder joint, his left rib got fractured, left shoulder too sustained fracture and came to be operated upon and rod was implanted, he remained admitted in Govt. Medical College for 12 days, whereby, his earning capacity has been considerably diminished. Dr. I.K. Wangnoo has supported the evidence of the appellant (petitioner) by deposing, that appellant was examined and found an old operated case of rotator cuff injury left with stiffness left shoulder with healed fracture ribs and his permanent disability was assessed at 5%, with this disability petitioner cannot do the job of a laborer and the disability will hamper his day today work. Petitioner by the vehicular accident has suffered mental shock, physical pain and sufferings already, and even throughout his life he is likely to suffer same mental shock, physical pain and sufferings in future and therefore appellant (petitioner) needs to be compensated for the said injuries. Applying the guess work, and having sympathy linked with the nature of disablement suffered by the petitioner, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded as compensation on account of mental & physical shock, pain and sufferings to the appellant (petitioner). (II) Damages to compensate for loss of amenities of life:- Appellant (Petitioner) and his witnesses have unequivocally putforth cogent, trustworthy, inspiring and credible evidence that the petitioner by the vehicular accident on 16.05.2004 has suffered grievous injuries on his chest, shoulder joint, left shoulder fracture and the degree of disability is 5% which has considerably reduced the earning capacity of appellant. Human life is valuable, and therefore, pleasantness in life is the desire and dream of every individual. Every human being desires to spend his life free from inconvenience, hardships, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress. Pleasure of life is the most invaluable asset of a human being. While awarding compensation to the claimant for loss of amenities and pleasure of life, the Tribunal has to keep in view the long span of the life the claimant has to go through as a disabled person depending upon others for his sustenance. In the case law of [4]Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukhteshwar Chib, [2008 SLJ 709], Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Singh [His Lordships the then was Hon'ble Judge of J&K High Court], while appreciating the role of a Tribunal or Court to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, at page 713, in paragraph 22 held as under:- Para 22 "It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that whenever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration and some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability causes. All these elements one, however, required to be viewed with objective standards." The test of law and the ratio of the judgment (Supra), fully applies to facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Applying the guess work, having sympathy linked with the nature of permanent disablement of 5% suffered by the appellant (petitioner) whole of the life of appellant (petitioner) has become unpleasant. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the appellant (petitioner) as compensation for the loss of amenities and pleasure of his life. As at the time of accident on 16.05.2004 the offending vehicle tractor was not insured, therefore, the award amount shall be satisfied and paid by Respondent No. 1 being owner of the offending vehicle to the appellant. 9. ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF:............... O.P. Parties? The burden of proof of this issue lies on the parties to the claim petition. In view of what has been discussed above, issues 1&2 have been proved and decided in favor of the appellant (petitioner) as against the respondents. 9. ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF:............... O.P. Parties? The burden of proof of this issue lies on the parties to the claim petition. In view of what has been discussed above, issues 1&2 have been proved and decided in favor of the appellant (petitioner) as against the respondents. Appellant (petitioner) therefore has been found entitled to the compensation from Respondent No.1 on account of the grievous injuries & permanent disablement suffered by him under the following heads:- S. No. Headings Amount 1. Compensation for total future loss of earning =Rs. 42000/- 2. Compensation on account of medical expenses =Rs. 28000/- 3. Compensation for mental/physical shock, pain, sufferings already suffered or likely to suffer in future = Rs. 50,000/- 4. Compensation for loss of amenities of life = Rs. 50,000/- 5. Total Compensation =Rs. 1,70,000/- Accordingly, appellant (petitioner) is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rs. one lac seventy thousand only) minus interim relief if already received, with simple interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition. The Ld. Tribunal vide his impugned judgment/award dated 25.09.2010 has awarded only an amount of Rs. 79200/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition which the appellant is entitled to receive. Additionally, the appellant is further entitled to the enhanced/increased amount of Rs. 90,800/- [Rs. 170000/- - Rs. 79200/-] (Rs. Ninety thousand & eight hundred only) with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from Respondent No.1 (owner of the vehicle) from the due date of filing of petition till the amount is actually paid by Respondent No.1. The impugned judgment/award rendered by the Ld. Tribunal Jammu dated 25.09.2010 is accordingly modified. Copy of this award shall be forthwith sent to Respondent No.1 for compliance. No orders as to costs. Original record of the Tribunal be set back forthwith. 10. Disposed off accordingly alongwith connected CMPs if any.