JUDGMENT PRADIPTA RAY, J. — Claimant-Respondent No. 1 filed a claim case in the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, stating that on December 25, 1992 while he was coming to Pattamundai from Rajnagar in his cycle, a Trekker bearing registration No. ORY 2515 came form the opposite direction in a high speed and dashed against his cycle and as a result the claimant fell from his cycle on the road suffering dislocation of his left pelvis and multiple injuries on different parts of the body. According to the claimant he was first taken to Pattamundai Hospital where¬from he was referred to Kendrapara Hospital. He was treated as an indoor patient in Kendrapara Hospital for 11 days. His left leg had to be plastered. Subsequently, he came to S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, for further treatment as an outdoor patient. In Cuttack his plaster was removed but his leg had to be replastered. Plaster was ultimately removed at Kendrapara Hospi¬tal after about one month. 2. In spite of service of notice, the owner of the offend¬ing vehicle did not appear and the claim case was set ex parte against him. The Oriental Insurance Company, the Insurer, con¬tested the case disputing that the petitioner was injured in any motor vehicle accident. By judgment and award dated August 28, 2000, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till realisation thereof. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed this present appeal. 3. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the Insur¬ance Company has urged that the materials on record raise strong suspicion about the claim of the claimant that he suffered in¬juries in an accident involving the offending vehicle. Mr. Dutta has referred to the injury report forwarded by the treating doctor of Kendrapara Sub-Divisional Hospital in which it has been recorded that the claimant himself complained of a fall from a cycle. On the basis of the said report Mr. Dutta submits that the claimant just fell from his cycle and got injured and the story of motor vehicle accident was concocted as an after-thought to get compensation from the Insurance Company. Mr. On the basis of the said report Mr. Dutta submits that the claimant just fell from his cycle and got injured and the story of motor vehicle accident was concocted as an after-thought to get compensation from the Insurance Company. Mr. Dutta has also pointed out that although the alleged accident took place on December 25, 1992, the F.I.R. was lodged only on December 30, 1992, introducing the story of involvement of the offending vehicle. 4. There are sufficient materials on record to show that the claimant got injured on December 25, 1992 and was treated at Kendrapara Sub-Divisional Hospital on the same day. The dispute is whether the claimant accidentally fell down from his cycle and suffered injuries or the offending Trekker dashed against the claimant and caused his fall from the cycle. The claimant has examined himself and another eye-witness to prove that the acci¬dent was caused by the offending Trekker. The Appellant-Insurance Company has not examined any witness. Moreover, upon examination of the materials on record this Court does not find any material inconsistency between the story in the F.I.R. and the statement before the doctor. It appears from the statement of the claimant made before the doctor that he fell from the cycle and sustained injuries and his case stated in the complaint is that he fell from the cycle as the offending vehicle coming from the front side dashed against his cycle. Admittedly the vehicle did not injure him but the vehicle was responsible for the fell from the cycle. It is quite possible that as the offending vehicle was coming from the opposite direction at a high speed the vehicle dashed his cycle and the claimant fell down. It is the consistent case of the claimant that he suffered injuries because he fell from the cycle but the vehicle was responsible for his fall from the cycle. This Court does not find much substance in the objec¬tion raised by the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. There is no evidence that the claimant has suffered any permanent disability or loss of earning capacity. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- where the fracture has not caused any disability is high and accordingly the compensation is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). 30,000/-. There is no evidence that the claimant has suffered any permanent disability or loss of earning capacity. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- where the fracture has not caused any disability is high and accordingly the compensation is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). The said compensation amount will however carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filling of the claim case. The appellant’s objection to the award of interest cannot be sustained as compensation becomes due from the date of the accident. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the compensation from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). The compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim case till payment or deposit thereof. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest in the Tribunal by 31st of December, 2002. The appellant is permitted to take back the amount deposited in this Court along¬with interest accrued thereon. Appeal disposed of.