JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—Both the appeals are treated as on today’s list for hearing on merits. 2. Two independent appeals are placed before us. One appeal has been made by the claimant and another has been made by the Insurance Company. Both are arising out of the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 7.2.2006. 3. On a particular date, i.e. on 16.11.2009 when none appeared on the repeated calls, the appeal of the Insurance Company was dismissed as infructuous. However, so far as the appeal of the claimant is concerned, an order was passed on 18.11.2009 as follows : “In view of dismissal of appeal of the insurance company earlier, on which the liability was fastened and release of 5,00,000/- amount of the awarded compensation in favour of the appellant, now remaining amount alongwith interest has to be released in favour of the claimant. Such remaining amount alongwith interest as awarded by the tribunal will be paid to the claimant by the insurance company as early as possible within a period of 60 days from this date. However, if such amount is not paid within the specified period of 60 days, it will carry interest @ 9 % till the date of actual payment. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission on informal papers, as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties. No order is passed as to costs.” 4. So far as the payment of Rs. 5 lacs to the claimant is concerned, such part has been complied with by the Insurance Company but for the rest, it has not complied with taking a plea that an application for recalling the order dated 16.11.2009 has been made. However, earlier order dated 16.11.2009 passed in the appeal of Insurance Company was recalled by this Court on 18.5.2010 and the order dated 18.11.2009 passed in the claimant’s appeal is recalled today. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant and the Insurance Company are directed to proceed with the arguments on merits. 6. The argument which has been put forth before us by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that the amount of compensation of Rs. 10 lacs is on the higher side. He has further contended that it is not the case of death but disablement. 6. The argument which has been put forth before us by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that the amount of compensation of Rs. 10 lacs is on the higher side. He has further contended that it is not the case of death but disablement. So far as the disablement part is concerned, he contended before us that disablement which was originally there at the time of accident was not so grave but subsequently due to fall of the claimant at his residence, further injury was occurred which part cannot be covered by the Insurance Company’s claim because that cannot be attributable to the motor accident. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant relied upon a judgment of Queen’s Bench Division All England Law Reports [1996] 3, 1006 (WIELAND v. CYRIL LORD CARPETS, LTD.) Factually, the case is similar with the case before us. The plaintiff therein suffered an injury caused by the admitted negligence of the defendants. After attending the hospital she felt shaken and the movement of her head was constricted by a collar which had been fitted to her neck. In consequence she was unable to use her bi-focal spectacles with her usual skill and she fell while descending stairs, sustaining further injuries. It was held by the Court that the injury and damage suffered because of the second fall were attributable to the original negligence of the defendants so as to attract compensation from them. 8. As against this, argument has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that in the case of England, principle of tort is applicable as no written law is available but here the law is codified. 9. According to us, argument which has been made by the learned Counsel appears to be fallacious. Whether the law is codified or not, is not the subject matter nor the situation is contemplated in the Indian law. Therefore, requirement of the evidence is necessary to come to a conclusion by the Court whether the subsequent injury is independent or consequential to the accident. If it is independent, claim has to be refused. But if it is consequential due to loss of any of his usual skill, which was lost due to accident, Insurance Company cannot shirk the liability. 10. If it is independent, claim has to be refused. But if it is consequential due to loss of any of his usual skill, which was lost due to accident, Insurance Company cannot shirk the liability. 10. So far as the total claim is concerned, though this seems to be more than Rs. 10 lacs (ten lacs), but the medical expenses is Rs. 7,69,296/- (Seven lacs sixty nine thousand two hundred ninety six). Therefore, the claimant only got the compensation of Rs. 3,06,000/- (Three lacs six thousand). The accident is of the year 2002. The original order of the Tribunal is of the year 2006. Now it is the year 2010. By the passage of time, much more expenditure might have been incurred which cannot be part and parcel of the claim. Therefore, taking into the totality of the facts, we cannot refuse any compensation on the basis of the order, passed by the Tribunal. Hence, we uphold the order of the Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has made his submission with regard to the rate of interest which according to them ought to be at the rate of 6%. We are of the view that the Tribunal has passed the order carrying on the interest @ 6% but when this Court has passed the order in the earlier occasion directed to deposit the entire sum within 60 days, but the Insurance Company instead of depositing the same, only by making an application for recalling the order dated 18.11.2009, they themselves become silent, which does not favour to get reduced rate of interest. Making a recall application itself cannot operate as an order of stay of the order dated 18.11.2009. 12. Therefore, at this stage, if we grant any relaxation for payment of accruing interest @ 9%, that will be indulgence to the Insurance Company. In further, the interest at the rate of 9%, according to us, now is usual rate of banking interest, therefore, it cannot be said to be excessive. Hence the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed on merits. 13. However, no order is passed as to costs. 14. The entire sum has been deposited when the order of attachment was passed. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to withdraw the sum upon completion of formalities, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 13. However, no order is passed as to costs. 14. The entire sum has been deposited when the order of attachment was passed. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to withdraw the sum upon completion of formalities, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Earlier order in the appeal of the claimant stands as it is. Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—I agree. ————