JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer appellant.
The insurer appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 8,56,511 as compensation to the claimants on account of the injuries sustained by the claimants in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a jeep No. UP 76-A 8607 insured with the present appellant.
2. It is said that on 31.8.2000 at about 10 a.m. claimants Rahul Verma and Anuj Kumar Saxena had gone on a motor cycle No. UP 76-A 9218 when they met with the accident near Durga Temple in Civil Lines Police Station, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, on account of which they sustained injuries. Claimant-respondent No. 1 Rahul Verma received grievous injuries and his left leg was fractured. Respondent No. 2 Anuj Kumar Saxena received simple injuries. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are aged about 21 and 25 years respectively. The respondent No. 1 used to help his mother who is a Government contractor. Out of the earning she used to give Rs. 5,000 to her son Rahul Verma per month.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation, because it has taken disability as 80 per cent for the injuries sustained as mentioned in the medical certificate. According to the statutory provision as per entry at serial No. 19 of Schedule I, part II of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the permanent disability is only 60 per cent for assessing the compensation. This Schedule does not state that the disability cannot exceed more than 60 per cent. There is a medical certificate showing that his left leg from thigh has to be amputated due to which the claimant No. 1 Rahul Verma cannot perform even his daily chores. We do not find any substance in this submission that permanent disability cannot exceed 60 per cent as provided in Schedule I, part II of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the Tribunal should not have awarded interest over the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000 for engaging permanent assistant for the claimant No. 1. In this connection it has been held in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), that the interest is not payable over the amount paid to claimant in respect of future expenditures. The Apex Court further held that the interest is to be paid only over the amount which has become payable on the date of award.
5. Mr. S.K. Misra, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the award of interest over the amount of Rs. 50,000 be waived off.
6. The findings of the Tribunal is set aside and the insurer appellant shall not be liable to pay interest over the amount of Rs. 50,000 as awarded by the Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that he had not sought permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the Tribunal to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. It has been held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), where it was indicated that such application for permission has to be bona fide and filed at the stage when the insured is required to lead his evidence.
8. The Tribunal for the reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim of the parties, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and the insurer so impleaded to the proceedings have the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned by the Tribunal against it on the question relating to the quantum of compensation and has urged that taking into consideration the nature of the business said to have been carried on by the injured, his income could not have been assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month.
10. The claimant has stated that his parent used to pay Rs. 5,000 per month for the assistance rendered by him as a contractor. He was not cross-examined on this point and no evidence was also led. Normally, for a healthy man of 21 years, the amount of Rs. 3,000 per month does not appear to be excessive.
11. In the result this appeal is partly allowed to the extent that award of interest at the rate of 9 per cent over the amount of Rs. 50,000 is struck off.