Rakesh Tiwari, J. We have heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, Counsel for the appellant, Sri P.S. Pundir, caveator for respondent No. 1, and perused the record as also papers filed along with memo of appeal. 2. This appeal challenges the award dated 12.12.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./ Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut in M.A.C.P. No! 873 of 2007: Vinay Kumar v. Raj Kumar Singh and another, whereby compensation of Rs. 5,11,791/-together with simple interest @ 7% has been awarded. 3. The claimant-respondent No. 1, is alleged to have sustained injuries on account of accident by motorcycle registration No. D.L.35AB-1863 on 4.7.2007 at about 9.30 P.M while he was going his Village-Poothkhas from Meerut. FIR was lodged by Mahendra Singh stating that the accident in question occurred when rider of motorcycle tried to save a dog who suddenly came under the tyre of motorcycle. Claim petition under Section 166& 140 of Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Tribunal claiming 14,40,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum towards compensation. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim of driver of motorcycle in question stating that the accident had occurred due to negligence driving of rider in breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Company and that his driving licence was not valid. 5. The Tribunal after hearing, dismissed the claim petition on 24.7.2008. Restoration application was filed on behalf of claimant-respondent for setting aside the aforesaid order which was allowed by the Tribunal by fixing 15.2.2011 for evidence of claimant-respondent. In these circumstances, application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act was filed on behalf of appellant-insurance company on 20.11.2012 which was allowed by the Tribunal. 6. After evidence was adduced, learned Tribunal allowed the aforesaid claim petition awarding a sum of Rs. 5,11,791/ - along with interest @ 7% per annum with effect from 1.1.2009 towards compensation to the claimant-respondent against Insurance Company. 7. Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that disability was caused due to injuries suffered in the accident by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle; that disability was partial in nature as the claimant still performing his duties in C.R.P.F. and is getting enhanced salary of Rs. 22,000/-, whereas before the accident he was earning Rs. 11,000/- per month. 22,000/-, whereas before the accident he was earning Rs. 11,000/- per month. Therefore, there is neither any loss of pay nor disability effecting discharge of his duties. 8. According to him, learned Tribunal considering the statement of Yogendra Kumar-P.W. 2 as well as statement of P.W. 1 that 'MUJHE DURGHATNA KE SAMAI MUBLIG 7.000/-SEADHIK VETANMILTA THA. IS SAMAY MUJHE 27,000/- YA 22,000/- VETAN MILTA HAI has committed illegality. It is stated that injuries received by the claimant in left knee is not permanent injury and even the doctor who has issued the disability certificate has clearly stated that claimant has not been issued certificate by the doctor who had treated him. 9. No other point has been argued before us. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties and considering fact and circumstances of this case, it appears that the Tribunal believed evidence of claimant-Vinay Kumar that at the time of accident he was posted on the post of police in C.R.P.F. 46 Bt. New Delhi and though he has passed the examination of S.I., but has not been promoted due to injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. As regard difference in pay from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 21,000/-, the Tribunal found that salary of claimant was revised by 6th Pay Commission, therefore, it appears that there is no enhancement of pay of appellant in service rather his promotion has been withheld. The relevant extract of award is quoted as under: @ Hindi @ 10. The Tribunal further relying upon disability certificate has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,11,791/- with simple interest @ 7% per annum directing Insurance Company to make payment. 11. We find from the record that the appellant was between 25-30 years of age, therefore, multiplier of' 18' has rightly been applied by the Tribunal in computation, according to second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act. 12. In view of the above discussion, we find that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties in the case and has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimant-respondents. However, on perusal of record, we find that the claim petition filed in the year 2007, was dismissed in default on 24.7,2008 and restored to its original number on 31.1.2011, therefore, claimant would not get any interest on the amount of compensation during the period, the claim petition was not pending. 13. However, on perusal of record, we find that the claim petition filed in the year 2007, was dismissed in default on 24.7,2008 and restored to its original number on 31.1.2011, therefore, claimant would not get any interest on the amount of compensation during the period, the claim petition was not pending. 13. Thus we direct that the claimant would get simple interest @ 7% per annum on Rs.5,11,791/- from the date of institution of the claim petition till 24.7.2008 and then from 31.1.2011 till final payment. The appellant as insurer of the motorcycle is liable to indemnify the award. 14. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed as indicated above. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in this Court, be remitted to the concerned Tribunal within three weeks for adjustment.