Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1). THIS appeal is at the instance of a claimant and is directed against an award dated 23rd August, 2004 passed by the 10th Court of Additional District judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alipore, in Motor Accident Claim Case no. 228 of 2000 thereby disposing of an application under Section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellant by directing the Insurance Company to pay a total sum of Rs. 50,999/-as compensation for the injury suffered by the appellant arising out of an accident occurred on January 21, 2000. (2). ACCORDING to the appellant, on that day, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle with a pillion rider along with the Clyde Row near its crossing with the Commissariat Road, one truck bearing No. WMK-7339 hit the said motorcycle at its back, as a result, he had fallen down from the motorcycle and sustained multiple injuries in his left leg. The appellant alleged that at the time of accident, he was earning a sum of Rs. 11,713/- a month and the injury resulted in his partial permanent disablement to the extent of 35 percent. He, accordingly, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,80,000/- for the injury sustained by him. (3). THE proceeding was contested by the Insurance Company by filing the written statement thereby denying the material allegations and opposing the claim of the appellant. (4). AT the time of hearing, apart from the appellant, an employee of his office proved his monthly remuneration and at the same time, the Doctor who certified his disablement to the extent of 35 percent appeared as PW-3. (5). THE learned Tribunal below accepted the case of the appellant that he was injured in the accident and that the offending truck was insured by the insurance Company concerned, but placed no reliance upon the certificate issued by the Doctor certifying partial permanent disablement to the extent of 35 percent. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that payment of the salary for three months and a half plus Rs. 10,000/- as damages for the mental pain and agony was sufficient to compensate the loss suffered by the appellant and accordingly, awarded a total amount of Rs. 40,999/-+ Rs. 10,000/-= Rs. 50,999/ -. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that payment of the salary for three months and a half plus Rs. 10,000/- as damages for the mental pain and agony was sufficient to compensate the loss suffered by the appellant and accordingly, awarded a total amount of Rs. 40,999/-+ Rs. 10,000/-= Rs. 50,999/ -. The insurance Company was directed to pay the amount within three months with a stipulation that failing the payment of such amount with the said period, the same will carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum until requisition. The tribunal further held that if the appellant had already recovered a sum of rs. 25,000/- in terms of the provision under Section 140 of the Act, the said amount should be adjusted. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal. (6). MR. Das, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before us that his client having become partial permanent disabled to the extent of 35 percent as certified by the Doctor, the Tribunal below erred in law in not granting any amount of compensation in accordance with the principles mentioned in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to Mr Das, the mere fact that due to accident his clients salary has not been curtailed, cannot deprive his client of his right to get compensation for the loss of physical capability to the extent of 35 percent as found by the Doctor. Mr Das contends that even if, there was no financial loss due to such disablement due to benevolence of the employer, for loss of physical ability to the extent of 35 percent, his client was entitled to get further compensation. (7). BEFORE entering into the question raised by Mr Das, we propose to consider whether in the facts of the present case it has at all been established that the appellant suffered partial permanent physical disablement to the extent of 35 percent as claimed by him. (8). (7). BEFORE entering into the question raised by Mr Das, we propose to consider whether in the facts of the present case it has at all been established that the appellant suffered partial permanent physical disablement to the extent of 35 percent as claimed by him. (8). IT appears from the certificate issued by the Doctor, the PW-3, that after describing the past treatment of the appellant in the hospital and considering the x-ray plates dated 21st January, 2000, 22nd January, 2000, 4th February, 2000, 5th March, 2000, 13th May, 2000 and 18th December, 2001 and the clinical finding appearing therefrom, he arrived at the conclusion that the victim had suffered partial permanent disability to the extent of 35 percent. (9). WE have already pointed out that the said Doctor appeared as PW-3 and in his cross-examination, he specifically admitted that he did not treat the patient at any point of time and that he was, at no point of time, attached to the port Trust Hospital. He issued the certificate about three years after the accident. He admitted that he perused the x-ray plates of the patient dated 18th December, 2001 and he did not suggest to the patient for any fresh x-ray. He further confided that he had no personal knowledge regarding the cause of injury or the disability. He further admitted that the injuries were non-scheduled injuries as per the provision of the Workmens Compensation Act and that he determined the degree of disability as a whole as per the overall injuries with the residual disability in the whole body. He denied the suggestion that the disability was excessive one or that the patient was totally fit. (10). AFTER going through the said deposition, we are of the view that the said report cannot be accepted as an evidence of 35 percent partial permanent disablement. In this case, all that the appellant suffered was multiple fractures on his leg and he was operated in the year 2000 and steel-plates were fixed. According to the report, he was again admitted to the same hospital in the year 2002 when the plates were removed. (11). In this case, all that the appellant suffered was multiple fractures on his leg and he was operated in the year 2000 and steel-plates were fixed. According to the report, he was again admitted to the same hospital in the year 2002 when the plates were removed. (11). WE are surprised to find that the said Doctor gave his report based on x-ray plates of the year 2000, when he admitted in his report that the patient had further operation in the year 2002 and he was discharged in the month of March 2002. Therefore, on the basis of x-ray plates before the removal of the steel-plate, he gave his opinion. He did not even try to ascertain the position of the injury as it stood after the removal of the plates nor did he advise him to take fresh x-ray to ascertain the existing position. (12). IN other words, his report is based on old x-ray plates and according to the statements of the patient narrated to him. (13). ON the basis of such material, if he formed any opinion about the disablement to the extent of 35 percent, we are unable to accept such report. We do not know whether those x-ray plates and the reports were at all the x-ray plates and reports relating to the injury of the petitioner. Unless the Doctor certifying disablement gave guarantee of the genuineness of the x-ray plates as that of the patient, such report cannot be taken into consideration. (14). WE, therefore, find that in the case before us, the appellant had failed to prove that he suffered any disablement. The fact remains that he is working in his office and apart from the leave for few months at the time of accident, he had not produced any document showing further complication. (15). IN such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal below that apart from the salary of three and half months and additional expenses of Rs. 10,000/-, the appellant is not entitled to get any further amount. (16). WE, however, find substance in the contention of Mr Das that it was the duty of the Tribunal to award interest at least at the rate of 8 percent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the application until the deposit of the amount. (16). WE, however, find substance in the contention of Mr Das that it was the duty of the Tribunal to award interest at least at the rate of 8 percent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the application until the deposit of the amount. We, therefore, modify the award only to the extent that in addition to the awarded amount, the appellant will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the application till the deposit of the amount. The enhanced amount be deposited within a month before the Tribunal. (17). IN view of our finding that the appellant failed to prove his partial permanent disablement, we have not considered the other various submissions of mr Das regarding assessment of compensation in case of damages for partial disablement and whether in such case, actual loss of earning is necessary or not. (18). THE appeal is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.