JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — This appeal has been filed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 17th March, 1994 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T. (Northern Division), Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case No. 297 of 1990(S) awarding a compensation of Rs. 62,000/ - with interest thereon from the date of claim to claimant - respondent No.1. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case as alleged in the claim petition are that the petitioner who was a poor rickshaw puller met with an accident on 17.7.1990 at 6.30 P.M. near Dhanupali Chhak, Sambalpur. At the time of acci¬dent, he was moving on foot on the left side of National Highway No. 42. The offending jeep bearing registration No. DHE-9341 coming in high speed and being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the applicant from his backside as a result of which he sustained injuries including fracture in the right leg. On the basis of a petition filed by him, Misc. (A) Case No. 297 of 1990 was registered in the Court of 2nd M.A.C.T. (Northern Division), Sambalpur. 3. The owner of the vehicle in question who was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the said case did not appear and was set ex parte. The appellant-insurance company was arrayed as opposite party No.2. Though it was admitted by opposite party No.2 that the offending jeep was insured with the company and the insurance policy was valid on the date of accident, the ownership of the jeep having not been transferred and no intimation as mandatorily required under the M.V. Act having been given to the appellant-insurance company, the insurer pleaded that it was not liable to pay any compensation. There was also bald denial of the accident. 4. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant exam¬ined three witnesses including himself and exhibited nine docu¬ments, such as F.I.R., Zimanama, Charge-sheet, Injury Report, Discharge certificate, prescriptions, cash memos, bank pass book and insurance certificate. P.W.1 was the doctor, P.W.2 was the claimant himself, and P.W.3 was an occurrence witness, who sup¬ported the claimant’s case. P.W.2 has given evidence supporting the averments made taken by him in the claim petition. The state¬ments of P.W.2 have been corroborated by P.W.3. P.W.1 was the doctor, P.W.2 was the claimant himself, and P.W.3 was an occurrence witness, who sup¬ported the claimant’s case. P.W.2 has given evidence supporting the averments made taken by him in the claim petition. The state¬ments of P.W.2 have been corroborated by P.W.3. According to P.W.1, the doctor, who treated the claimant, there was disloca¬tion of right ankle joint, fracture of Calcaneum and fracture of fifth metatarsal. P.W.1 further deposed that the claimant was admitted in a Nursing Home where he remained as an indoor patient for three days. The injury report was duly proved by him. The doctor categorically stated that the injured-claimant cannot pull a rickshaw since there was partial disability of the right leg. 5. The Tribunal found that the claimant was earning Rs. 40 to Rs. 50/- per day, which he cannot earn any more due to the injuries caused on his leg. After taking into consideration all the factors, it awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards physical pain and injury, Rs. 4,000/- towards medical treatment and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of earning due to disability of right leg, thus totalling a sum of Rs. 62,000/-. The Tribunal also directed the Insurance Company to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the claim application, i.e., 20.6.1990, till realization. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at is based on surmises and conjectures. He also submit¬ted that awarding a compensation of Rs. 62,000/- to the claimant, who suffered only two fractures is grossly disproportionate and is on higher side. Further since the ownership of the vehicle had been changed without observing the mandatory provisions of the M.V. Act and without informing the insurance company, according to Mr. Sinha, the present appeal should be allowed and it should be held that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Though notice was issued to the respondents i.e. the owner of the jeep, as well as the claimant and the same was sufficient, there was no appearance on their behalf. After hear¬ing Mr. Sinha and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the evidence of the doctor, P.W.1 cannot be disbe¬lieved. Admittedly, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and two fractures. After hear¬ing Mr. Sinha and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the evidence of the doctor, P.W.1 cannot be disbe¬lieved. Admittedly, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and two fractures. The fracture on his right leg, according to P.W.1, made him invalid. The claimant, who was a rickshaw puller just before the accident, cannot earn his livelihood by pulling rick¬shaw any further. The doctor, P.W.1 has also stated as to the disability caused to the leg of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid evidence coupled with the evidence of the claimant as well as P.W.3, I find that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 8. Law is well settled that even otherwise the insurance company is precluded from challenging the quantum of compensation unless there are compelling reasons, which are lacking here. 9. The submission of Mr. Sinha is that the owner of the offending vehicle had sold the vehicle prior to the accident without intimation to the insurance company and thus, the appel¬lant - insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. However, it is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant - insurance company and the insurance policy was valid on the date of accident. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others AIR 1999 SC 1398 , transfer of ownership of the vehicle shall not exonerate the insurance compa¬ny from paying compensation. 10. In view of the aforesaid position of law, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Sinha and accord¬ingly, confirm the findings arrived at by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. 11. The only other question, which arises is as to whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal from the date of application is just and proper. Admittedly, Misc. Case No. 297 of 1990 was filed by the claimant impleading a wrong owner and only in the year 1992 the original owner was impleaded. Thus, for the laches of the claimant, the Misc. Case lingered from 1990 till 1992. I feel that it will not be just and proper to saddle interest for the aforesaid period on the insurance company. Thus, for the laches of the claimant, the Misc. Case lingered from 1990 till 1992. I feel that it will not be just and proper to saddle interest for the aforesaid period on the insurance company. Accordingly while not interfering with the amount of compensation awarded i.e. Rs. 62,000/- as well as the liability of the insurance company to pay the said amount, I direct that interest at the rate of 10 % per annum shall be payable from 25.7.1990 when the Misc. Case was amended and not from 26.10.1992 i.e. the date of application. Thus, the insurance company shall not be liable to pay any inter¬est for the period from 26.10.1990 till 25.7.1992 and shall only be liable to pay interest from 25.7.1992 till realization of the entire awarded amount. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost. Appeal disposed of.