JUDGMENT : 1. Barkat Ali-claimant, respondent No.1 herein, in the appeal asserted in the claim petition filed by him before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu that he had suffered permanent disability in a road traffic accident on 12.01.2009 which took place due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2-Parvinder Sharma, who was driving matador bearing No. JK02R-8884. The claimant was also travelling in the same vehicle which turned turtle as the driver of the vehicle lost control over the vehicle in question. 2. The appellant herein-Insurance Company Contested the claim petition. The respondents, owner and driver of the vehicle, were proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal. 3. As far as the rash and negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle is concerned, the same was held to have been proved by the Tribunal and the same is also not disputed in the appeal. The claimant was held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,92,000/-along with interest @ 7.5% per annum pendentelite and future except on the amount of loss of future income and the liability to pay the amount was fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. The appeal is preferred mainly on the ground that the liability has not been fastened upon the Insurance Company correctly as the vehicle was being plied by the driver of the vehicle not as per route permit. It is submitted that the vehicle as per the route permit was required to be plied from High Court Complex, Janipur to Bishnah by B.C.Road, G.L.Dogra Marg, Satwari and vice versa whereas the accident took place at Kalu Chak meaning thereby that the vehicle was not plying as per the route permit. 5. The learned Tribunal while deciding this issue has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2010 ACJ, 1526. Admittedly, the place where the accident took place does not strictly fall within the route permit on which the vehicle was supposed to ply. At the same time, it may also be noted that the place where the accident took place is not a far off place from the area where the vehicle was required to ply as per route permit and thus deviation was not significant one so as to absolve the Insurance Company to compensate the claimant in case the Insurance Company is to be otherwise held liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Thus, the contention raised that the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimant for the compensation to which the claimant may be held entitled to on the aforesaid ground is rejected. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Company has also argued that the Tribunal has not assessed the monthly income of the claimant in accordance with law and the permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal is also not as per the record. 7. The perusal of the file reveals that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 24% of right lower limb and when the disability is compared to whole body it will get reduced by one half. The statement of Dr. Som Kumar Chadgyal is on the file and so is the certificate of permanent disability issued in favour of the claimant-Barkat Ali. The doctor, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, in his statement has deposed qua the disability certificate issued which is exhibited as EXPW-SKC. As per the medical record, the victim was found to be treated case of sub-trochantric facture with displacement of fracture with history of RTA. The patient was treated at GMC Hospital, Jammu with close reduction of internal fixation. The implant is still inside and its removal requires another surgery. The patient has difficulty in his movement and doing heavy work. 8. There cannot be normally reassessment by this Court of the disability suffered by the claimant as per the medical evidence on record. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6000/-. The victim is a labourer. The learned counsel for the appellant though disputes the income assessed by the Tribunal, the Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not assessed the same exorbitantly which requires any scaling down by this Court while assessing the compensation. 9. The Court has, however, assessed the loss of earning capacity as 20% and also assessed the future loss of income accordingly. 10. The Court finds no reasons to make any amends in the same. The multiplier of 16 has been applied in the case in hand keeping in view the age of the victim as 31 years. Again no reason to interfere in the said finding. 10. The Court finds no reasons to make any amends in the same. The multiplier of 16 has been applied in the case in hand keeping in view the age of the victim as 31 years. Again no reason to interfere in the said finding. The Court has also held the petitioner entitled to loss of amenities, pain and sufferings to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each and medical expenses to the tune of Rs.21,000/-keeping in view the Medical Bills on record. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant though tried to impress upon the court that the Tribunal has granted more compensation than what is required in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court does not agree with the submission of the appellant. The awarding of compensation as mentioned in the award along with interest is just and does not require any interference by this court and is upheld. 12. The appeal is found to be without merit and is dismissed.