JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - In this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the 'Act') the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') calls in question legality of the award made by the Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short, the 'Tribunal'). 2. On the basis of an application filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Old Act') by Arjuna Kumar Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') M.A.C.T. Misc Case No. 831 of 1987 was instituted. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for the injuries allegedly sustained by him, in an accident which took place on 6.11.1987 at about 8.30 a.m. near Palasuni Check Gate on Cuttack-Bhubaneswar Road. According to him, while he was moving in a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No. OSU 3805 from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar on his left side at a normal speed with his sister-in-law as the pillion rider, a car bearing registration No. OSX 5005 belonging to Pradipta Kumar Mohapatra (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner') came from his opposite direction at a high speed and dashed against him as a result of which he sustained injuries. The vehicle ran over his leg and therefore, he sustained fracture injuries. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh on the ground of pain and suffering sustained by him and loss of income. He asserted that the lost his earning capacity. The claimant claimed that he was running a kirana shop in malgodown area of Cuttack, and though he was originally earning Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month, he had to let out the same to one Paramananda Biswal on a monthly rent of Rs. 850/-. 3. The owner of the offending car filed a written statement denying the assertions regarding cause of accident. It was specifically stated that the accident took place on account of negligence of the claimant who was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner in zig-zag way at a high speed. The insurer filed its written statement, denying its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. The Tribunal analysed the evidence adduced by the parties and came to hold that there was contributory negligence by the claimants so far as the accident is concerned. The insurer filed its written statement, denying its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. The Tribunal analysed the evidence adduced by the parties and came to hold that there was contributory negligence by the claimants so far as the accident is concerned. It held that the driver of the car contributed 80% for the accident, while the claimant contributed 20%. The injury was held to be of such nature as to disable the claimant to the extent 40% which was permanent in nature. It was observed that the loss of income was Rs. 200/- per month. The age of the claimant was assessed to be 25 years. On that basis, applying a multiplier of 35 the entitlement was worked out at Rs. 84,000/-. But one fifth of the same was deducted for contributory negligence. After such deduction further deduction of one-sixth was made towards lump sum payment and the total loss of income of the claimant was determined at Rs. 56,834/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards mental shock, physical pain and loss of pleasure in life and Rs. 5,000/- towards the expenses incurred for treatment. Interest at there rate of 9% from the date of claim i.e. 26.11.1987 was awarded with a default rate of interest of 12% in case the payment was not made within three months from the date of award by the Tribunal. The insurer was also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 500/-. 4. The insurer has assailed correctness of the award on the following grounds: (a) The conclusions regarding disability are presumptuous and based on fake documents; (b) Since the claimant claimed to be running a kirana shop, in the absence of any material to show that there was any loss of earning, the Tribunal was not justified in a awarding any amount for loss of income. In any event the multiplier of 35 is extremely high and unreasonable. The claimant had originally claimed Rs. 40,000/-, and without any basis enhanced the claim to Rs. 1 lakh by way of amendment. It clearly shows that on an afterthought the enhancement of claim was made. (c) The amounts awarded towards mental shock, physical pain and loss of pleasure in life and towards the medical expenses square on the higher side. The claimant had originally claimed Rs. 40,000/-, and without any basis enhanced the claim to Rs. 1 lakh by way of amendment. It clearly shows that on an afterthought the enhancement of claim was made. (c) The amounts awarded towards mental shock, physical pain and loss of pleasure in life and towards the medical expenses square on the higher side. (d) Further the default rate of interest as stipulated is also stated to be untenable in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harapriya Nayak and Others, . The claimant supported the judgment and relying on the evidence submitted that the Tribunal's conclusion about contributory negligence is erroneous. 5. The evidence of the doctor (P.W. 1) is very significant. He claimed to have examined the injured as an out patient on 8.11.1988 and to have found that it was an old case of injury to the left knee of the injured. He claimed to have taken history of the patient and to have noticed deformity of the left knee, shortening of the left lower limb by half inch. He also stated that he saw the X-ray plate produced by the injured when he examined him on the first occasion. Significantly, this witness stated in his cross-examination that he had not seen the discharge certificate or any other document so far as the claimant is concerned, and has relied on the version of the claimant. He also accepted not to have seen any X ray plate taken in Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar where the claimant was admitted for the first time. He had stated about deformity of left knee. Nothing has been indicated by him as to on what basis he found the disability to be 40%. Though the claimant who was examined as P.W. 2 stated that he was hospitalised, records in that regard of either the Capital Hospital or the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, were tendered as evidence. Further, so far as the income aspect is concerned, the claimant stated that he was earning Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/ - per month. Strangely he accepted not to be an income tax assessee, and not even a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. This shown fallacy of his claim relating to huge turnover. Further, so far as the income aspect is concerned, the claimant stated that he was earning Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/ - per month. Strangely he accepted not to be an income tax assessee, and not even a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. This shown fallacy of his claim relating to huge turnover. He claimed that he has let out the shop of one Paramananda Biswal for amonthly rent of Rs. 850/-. But Paramananda was notexamined. Loss of income has not been established. Though the claimant claimed that he was being treated by Dr. Tejeswar Rao, no material in that regard was produced. As regards the quantum of claim it was stated that he raised claim to Rs. 1 lakh since he sustained more pain and suffering. Since the insurer made a statement during hearing of the appeal that the claimant has not really sustained injury of any serious nature, I had directed the claimant to appear in person. The learned Counsel for the claimant stated that it would be appropriate if the claimant appears in person. Pursuant to the direction the claimant had appeared on 25.11.1993.1 found no visible injury on the left leg. To my pointed query as to on which part of the leg he had sustained injuries, he gave evasive replies. About shortening of leg I asked him specifically. He chose to remain silent. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.W. 1 the doctor is hardly of any consequence and is apparently false. Further, the claimant has not adduced any evidence whatsoever regarding his initial treatment. His evidence about medical treatment states from that of P.W. 1 In this view of the matter, I find that adequate attention has not been given by the Tribunal to the relevant aspects. 6. Certain interesting revelations are made on perusal of the record. In the FIR lodged the injury on the claimant was stated to be on the head. In the form of requisition for medical examination, the injury was indicated to be in the chin, and a swelling injury. The Assistant Surgeon on examination found a swelling over leg 2" x 2" with bruises, and abrasion 2" x 2" on left ankle. There was a suspected fracture of tibia and X-ray was advised. Interestingly, the X-ray plate has not been brought on record. The Assistant Surgeon on examination found a swelling over leg 2" x 2" with bruises, and abrasion 2" x 2" on left ankle. There was a suspected fracture of tibia and X-ray was advised. Interestingly, the X-ray plate has not been brought on record. No reason has been stated by the claimant for such non-production. Interestingly the claimant has accepted that he was hospitalised for a day and thereafter was under treatment in a private clinic. But no document as indicated above has been brought on record. 7. Additionally the multiplier as adopted by the Tribunal is apparently high, in view of decision of the Apex Court in The General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 9583 of 1992 disposed of on 6.1.1993 that the maximum operative multiplier should not exceed sixteen. It is also seen that basis has been indicated for grant of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/ - for mental shock etc. and medical expenses respectively. The conclusions made by the Tribunal in regard thereto are presumptuous. 8. I feel this a fit case where re-consideration by the Tribunal is necessary. The Tribunal would do well to permit the parties to lead fresh evidence, if motion in that regard is made. The Tribunal may get the claimant examined by a reputed Orthopaedic Specialist to find out the truth regarding claim of disability. So far as interest is concerned, the same is discretionary, but default rate is impermissible in view of decision of this Court in Harapriya Nayak's case (supra). The award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for re-adjudication. The Tribunal would do well to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. To avoid unnecessary delay the parties appearing in this Court are directed to appear before the Tribunal without further notice on 21.6.1994, when the Tribunal shall fix a date of trial. Notice shall only be issued to the owner, since he has not appeared in this Court. The miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No costs.