JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant appeal, a challenge has been laid to the award dated 04.12.2015, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in case No. MAC-80/2009, whereby respondent No.1 (hereafter referred to as claimant) has been held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,35,355/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realization. 2. Respondent No. 1(claimant) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act”) before learned Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of personal injuries and disablement suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident involving Tractor No. HP-31B-9315. 3. It was alleged by the claimant that on 03.01.2007, she was walking as a pedestrian on the road at village Kawal Kot, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The Tractor bearing No. HP-31B-9315 came from behind and hit the petitioner. It was also averred that the tractor at the time of accident was being driven by driver Sh. Duni Chand in rash and negligent manner. As per petitioner not only she was injured in the accident but the tractor thereafter also rolled down in the fields causing death of the driver Sh. Duni Chand. 4. The Tractor was stated to be owned by respondent No. 2 herein (hereafter referred to as “owner”) and insured by the appellant herein (hereafter referred to as “insurer”). 5. As per claimant, she remained hospitalized from 03.01.2007 to 25.02.2007 in the first instance and thereafter from 08.03.2008 to 16.03.2008. She also claimed to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. Petitioner was stated to be 51 years of age at the time of accident. She further claimed to be earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from all sources including agricultural pursuits. 6. The owner filed his reply and admitted the factum of accident. However, allegations with respect to the rash and negligent driving of deceased Sh. Duni Chand were denied. It was submitted that the accident had taken place due to sudden mechanical defect. 7. The insurer also filed separate reply. It was alleged that the claimant was occupant of the Tractor and hence was a gratuitous passenger. Another objection was that the driver Sh. Duni Chand was not having valid and effective driving license. In this manner, the insurer sought to absolve itself from indemnifying the insured. 8. 7. The insurer also filed separate reply. It was alleged that the claimant was occupant of the Tractor and hence was a gratuitous passenger. Another objection was that the driver Sh. Duni Chand was not having valid and effective driving license. In this manner, the insurer sought to absolve itself from indemnifying the insured. 8. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 03.01.2007 at about 2:30 pm at place Kawal Kot due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor No. H.P. 31B-9315, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents ?OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not having valid documents of the tractor in question at the time of the alleged accident? OPR2 4. Whether the petitioner was an unauthorized and gratuitous passenger in the vehicle involved in the accident? OPR2. 5. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?OPR2 6. Relief. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and issues No. 3 to 5 were decided in negative. The claimant has been held entitled to compensation and interest, as noticed above. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the insurer has contended that the award requires interferences as the same suffers from patent illegality and perversity. It has been submitted that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured as the claimant was clearly proved to be occupier of the tractor at the time of accident. He has made reference to the contents of FIR Ext. PW3/A. It has further been submitted that the finding of learned Tribunal with respect to earning of claimant at Rs. 5,000/- per month was without any evidence and as such perverse. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the impugned award. By way of cross-objections, the claimant has sought enhancement of award. Learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.09.2020, in Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020, titled as Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the impugned award. By way of cross-objections, the claimant has sought enhancement of award. Learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.09.2020, in Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020, titled as Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. , reported in 2022 (13) SCC 719 , to assert that claimant was also entitled to loss of future prospects, which has not been allowed in her favour by learned Tribunal. 12. The claimant examined herself as her witness and in addition she also examined one Sh. Munshi Ram as eye witness to the accident. Both stated in tandem that the claimant was a pedestrian and she was hit by the tractor being driven by deceased Sh. Duni Chand in rash and negligent manner. 13. The insurer or the insured could not bring on record any evidence so as to discredit the version of above noted witnesses. Though, in FIR Ext. PW3/A, it was recorded that the claimant was the occupier of the tractor at the time of accident, but learned Tribunal found that the contents of FIR were not proved in accordance with law by either examining the author of the version recorded in FIR or by any other legal evidence. It was found that the author of the FIR had already died. The final report of untraced was submitted by the police. The Investigating Officer of the case was also not examined. Thus, there is nothing to take a view other than the one taken by learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has rightly granted weightage to the version of claimant and Sh. Munshi Ram as against the contents of FIR. Needless to observe that FIR by itself is not substantive piece of evidence. 14. As regards the objection as to the tractor being driven by late Sh. Duni Chand without any valid and effective license, the insurer has not led any evidence and has thus failed to discharge the requisite burden of proof. On the basis of material on record, learned Tribunal has rightly found that late Sh. Duni Chand had a license to drive LMC which included tractor also. No illegality or perversity can be found in such findings. 15. The challenge to the quantum of compensation assessed by learned Tribunal by insurer also is without merit. On the basis of material on record, learned Tribunal has rightly found that late Sh. Duni Chand had a license to drive LMC which included tractor also. No illegality or perversity can be found in such findings. 15. The challenge to the quantum of compensation assessed by learned Tribunal by insurer also is without merit. The income of the claimant has been assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. She was 51 years of age at the time of incident. The evidence on record reveals that claimant was engaged in agricultural pursuits including selling milk besides her household pursuits before the accident. The assessment of earning of less than Rs. 200/- per day notionally cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination. Thus, the income of the claimant has rightly been assessed. No objection has been raised by the insurer as to applicability of multiplier of 11. 16. Learned Tribunal, though, has quantified the compensation payable to the claimant under different heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, yet the loss on account of future prospects has not been considered. 17. In Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. (2022) 13 SCC 790 , it has been held as under:- “4.The appellant argues that the impugned judgment is in material error, in misreading this court’s judgments in Pranay Sethi & Ors4 which was later (2017) 16 SCC 860 (2018) 4 SCC 571 Supra n.2 followed in Jagdish5 by a three judge Bench, which had ruled that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self- employed individuals, and in case of self- employed persons an addition of 40% of established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. It was urged that the decision in Anant s/o of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap s/o Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr.6 relied on by the High Court, did not assess future prospects. However, that per se did not preclude claims by persons incurring permanent disablement as a consequence of motor accidents, from seeking such heads of compensation. It was urged that the decision in Anant s/o of Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap s/o Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr.6 relied on by the High Court, did not assess future prospects. However, that per se did not preclude claims by persons incurring permanent disablement as a consequence of motor accidents, from seeking such heads of compensation. It is urged that the High Court misread and created a distinct category of cases where addition in income towards "future prospects" can only be given in case of death, and not for injury, which cannot be the intention of this court as no such observation is made. It was argued that the High Court should have reassessed and not reduced 'the loss of future earning capacity' of the appellant from ? 11,66,400/- (determined by the tribunal) to ? 7,77,600/- on the wrongly depressed income of ? 8000/-. Learned counsel submitted that the assessment of monthly income should have been Rs.12,000/- and not Rs.8,000/. It was submitted that the courts below ignored the fact that in 2012, persons earning Rs.12, 000/- per month did not have to file income tax returns or pay tax. The High Court further erred in assessment of physical permanent disability of injured as 45%, even though it was 100%. 5 to 11…….. 12 In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle)”. 18. Applying the aforesaid dictum, the claimant having suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% is definitely entitled to loss of future prospects @ 10% keeping in view her age at 51 years and the ratio laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 19. In result, the appeal is dismissed. 18. Applying the aforesaid dictum, the claimant having suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% is definitely entitled to loss of future prospects @ 10% keeping in view her age at 51 years and the ratio laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 19. In result, the appeal is dismissed. Cross objection No. 1 of 2018 is allowed to the extent that the claimant is held entitled to loss of future prospects @ 10% and accordingly, the award is modified as under:- Description Amount (Rs.) Loss of income @ 30% 1,500 Loss of future prospects @ 10% 150 Total loss of earning per month 1,650 Total loss of earning (11 months x 12) 2,17,800 Expenditure incurred on medicine 12,355 Attendant charges 15,000 Charges for special diet 10,000 Non pecuniary damages as awarded by learned Tribunal 1,00,000 Grand Total 3,55,155 20. In addition, the claimant shall be entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum on the entire award amount from the date of filing of petition till actual realization of amount. 21. The appeal and cross-objection are, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any.