JUDGMENT This is an appeal by owner of two-wheeler. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dabra (to be called as Tribunal only) has awarded Rs. 35,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. since 14.11.1992 to the date of payment. The offending two wheeler was not insured. As per claim N.S. Rawat (AW 1) the claimant, a farmer and milk vendor, was dashed from behind by the motor cycle owned by the appellant and driven by P.K. Gupta (R-2) injuring him severely. On report to the police Crime No. 231/92 under section 279, 337, 338 of IPC was registered against P.K. Gupta (R-2) and charge sheet was filed in the criminal Court. As per X-ray report (Ex. P-3) fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg and distal end of radius bone of left forearm were noted. The claimant has counter-claimed for enhancement of the award to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. According to him, he was entitled to get the full amount spent by him in medical treatment. The appellant had not entered the witness box and controverted evidence of the claimant. Claimant (R-1) has filed disability certificate from civil surgeon according to which he could not travel without assistance of an escort. The claimant had submitted copy of FIR (Ex. P-1), spot map (Ex. P-2), other police papers (Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5), prescription (Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-12, Ex. P-14 to Ex. P-38). He had submitted cash memos for medicines (Ex. P-39 to Ex. P-85) and receipts from Chandak Hospital (Ex. P-86 to Ex. P-109) from an amount of more than Rs. 23,000/-. He has examined himself as AW 1, Prahlad Dubey (AW 2), Jeevanlal Soni (AW 3), eye-witnesses of the accident to prove negligence of Pavan Kumar Gupta (NAW I). Immediate FIR (Ex. P-l) was also lodged. Pavan Kumar (R2) was at Tested vide Ex. P-5 on 31.5.1992. His motorcycle was seized vide Ex. P-4 on the same day. A report under S. 279 and 337 was lodged against him by the police after due investigation and criminal case has been pending. On this evidence the finding of the Court below that Narendra Singh Rawat (R1) was injured due to fault of Pavan Kumar Gupta (R2) has been based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. Pavan Kumar Gupta (R2) has not come in appeal against such finding. Thus, negligence is well proved. On this evidence the finding of the Court below that Narendra Singh Rawat (R1) was injured due to fault of Pavan Kumar Gupta (R2) has been based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. Pavan Kumar Gupta (R2) has not come in appeal against such finding. Thus, negligence is well proved. In R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Private Limited ( AIR 1995 SC 755 ) on page No. 758-759, the Apex Court has observed as follows: "9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damage are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may includes: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likey to be suffered in future; (ii) damage to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." It has been true that the treating surgeon had not been examined but that in itself is not enough to throwaway the claim of the appellant. Lalitabai v. Amin Khan [2000(2) TAC 506 (MP)] has been different on facts. There only cash memos were produced. Prescriptions were not produced. In the present case the appellant has filed X-ray report of government hospital (Ex. P-3) prescriptions of doctor (Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-38). He has submitted cash memos for purchase of medicines and other expenses vide Ex. P-39 to Ex. P-104. Such prescriptions and cash memos have not been challenged by the appellant who himself did not enter the witness box. P-3) prescriptions of doctor (Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-38). He has submitted cash memos for purchase of medicines and other expenses vide Ex. P-39 to Ex. P-104. Such prescriptions and cash memos have not been challenged by the appellant who himself did not enter the witness box. The appellant could have well examined the doctor or the chemist who had written these prescriptions or the cash memos to rebut that they were genuine. Certainly, the claimant is entitled to get himself treated by the doctor of his own choice. He was not compelled to gel treatment only from the government doctor. He has submitted cash memos and other receipts (Ex. P-39 to Ex. P-104) totalling to Rs. 22,406.91. Thus he is entitled to treatment and medical expenses Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, an enhancement of Rs. 10,000/- is ordered in medical expenses. Award of Rs. 2,000/- for attendant has been proper. A ward of Rs. 2,000/- for special diet without production of bills or vouchers therefor has been proper. The appellant has been totally bedridden and incapacitated from work for about 4 months. He has been a farmer and milk vendor. Certainly, he is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as loss of income for the period. A ward of Rs. 10,000/- for future reduction in earning capacity by the Tribunal has not been out out of place and thus is maintained. Award of Rs. 5,000/- as general damages for physical pain and suffering had also been proper in accord with second schedule of the Act. However, award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been excessive in view of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Company (2001 ACJ 428) and Bhayla v. Abdul Kayum 1999(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 180 = ( 2000 ACJ 546 ) in which interest at the rate of 9% per annum should have been awarded. It is noteworthy that trial of the claim has been protracted but the claimant had not been responsible of the same. Thus, the Court below had erred in grant of interest to the claimant. In Ramesh Prasad v. Shyamlal [1998(1) MPWN 184] accident was dated 30.4.1986 when old Act applied. Times have changed thereafter. In Phool Chand v. Kamlesh Mishra ( 1998 ACJ 218 ) cash memos for purchase of medicines, etc. were not filed. So was the case in Panna Lal Kesharwani v. Ram Avtar Mittal [2002(3) TAC 688 (MP)]. In Ramesh Prasad v. Shyamlal [1998(1) MPWN 184] accident was dated 30.4.1986 when old Act applied. Times have changed thereafter. In Phool Chand v. Kamlesh Mishra ( 1998 ACJ 218 ) cash memos for purchase of medicines, etc. were not filed. So was the case in Panna Lal Kesharwani v. Ram Avtar Mittal [2002(3) TAC 688 (MP)]. Certainly, every claim has to be decided on its own facts. In view of these reasonings appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. Interest awarded is reduced to 9% per annum in place of 12% awarded by the Tribunal. Counter-claim of respondent No. 1 is allowed. An enhancement of Rs. 19,000/- in compensation is ordered. Interest at the rate of 9% shall also be paid since the date of claim to the date of payment. Such amount shall be paid by the appellant and Pavan Kumar Gupta (R2).