JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by Sohan Singh for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 45,000/- from Rs. 6,500/-, which had been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, by its judgment dated April 25, 1988. The compensation was in respect of the injuries received by the appellant in an accident, which occurred on August 5, 1983, at about 8.15 a.m. Compensation had been claimed against Idris Khan and Amin Khan, respondents of this appeal and the National Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur (respondent No.3). The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,500/- as against the aforesaid National Insurance Company Limited along with interest payable at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from November 5, 1985 till payment. It awarded interest for the period from December 8, 1983 to November 4, 1985 as against Amin Khan, who was the owner of the truck no. RSN 5136, with which the appellant met the accident. 2. Two points have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. One wag that the appellant was entitled to no fault compensation under Section 92-A as against the Insurance Company for the injuries received by him and that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the same. Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation. But it, however applies to case which falls within its ambit. Under sub-section (3) of Section 92-A, read with sub-section (1) the disability has got to be permanent and for that purpose no fault compensation would be awardable. In the instant case the certificate which has been produced by the appellant to prove his entitlement of no fault compensation does not establish that the appellant received permanent disability. Counsel attempted to argue that one of the arms of the appellant got twisted and that the same was permanent in nature. Twisting would not be a conclusive proof of the injury being permanent. No evidence could be shown to me either of the statement of the doctor or any other person establishing permanent disability. Consequently, his argument with regard to Section 92-A is not acceptable. 3. The second submission was about interest. The Tribunal has awarded interest as against the Insurance Company only with effect from November 5, 1985. No evidence could be shown to me either of the statement of the doctor or any other person establishing permanent disability. Consequently, his argument with regard to Section 92-A is not acceptable. 3. The second submission was about interest. The Tribunal has awarded interest as against the Insurance Company only with effect from November 5, 1985. For the period, for December 8, 1983 to November 4, 1985, interest at that Name of the counsel for respondents has not been typed in the copy of the judgment. -Editor very rate, i.e. 12% per annum, has been awarded against Amin Khan (respondent no.2). I have already stated above that Amin Khan was the owner of the truck with which the appellant met the accident. However, the consideration on which interest for the period mentioned above was not awarded as against the Insurance Company is (sic is not) understandable. Since the liability of payment of compensation was on National Insurance Company Limited and as the Tribunal had found the appellant to be entitled to get interest on the compensation at the rate of 12%, the same should have been awarded against the Insurance Company. Interest is on the compensation and the Tribunal did not find any ground to exempt the National Insurance Company Ltd. for not awarding interest for the period from Dec. 8,1983 to November 4,1985;its view was that as the respondent no. 2 did not cooperate with the Court by producing the insurance certificate before Nov. 5, 1985, for the period from Dec. 8, 1983 to Nov. 4, 1985 he had to bear the interest on the quantum of compensation. This was a sort of penalty imposed by the Tribunal on Amin Khan. Awarding of interest as against him was based on irrelevant consideration. Interest has to be awarded along with the principal which has been found liable to pay the same. The Tribunal could at the most award him costs of the case against the respondent no. 2 and not that he could be made liable to interest, although no compensation was found awardable as against him. 4. Consequently, the appeal succeeds partly and the decree of the Tribunal is modified. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum on compensation is held payable by the National Insurance Company Limited to the claimant.Appeal partly allowed. *******