JUDGMENT : Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has also considered the relevant materials on record. 2. The claimant-appellant's case is that she was travelling in a bus on 12.04.1998 when owing to rash driving on the part of the driver of the bus, the bus turned turtle and, as a result, the claimant-appellant suffered injury. It is her case that she was 35 years of age at the time of the accident and her monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. The claimant-appellant claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- initially which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000/-. The claim application was contested by the respondent-Insurance Company and the learned Tribunal by the judgment/award dated 29th August, 2005 awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimant-appellant as the claimant-appellant had to suffer mental and physical pain and agony. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimant-appellant that her right hand from the elbow had to be amputed. The learned Tribunal found that no medical document nor any doctor has stated anything about the alleged amputation of the right hand and the certificate being Exhibit-3 also does not reflect that there was traumatic disarticulation of the right elbow joint. The learned Tribunal further found from the evidence of P.W. 2, who happens to be the doctor, and had attended the claimant-appellant, that the claimant-appellant had been absconding from the hospital since 30.04.1998. It appears from the evidence of P.W.2 that the said P.W.2 did not state anything that there was any amputation of the right hand of the claimant-appellant. 3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant submits before this Court that the matter should be sent back on remand to the learned court below to enable the claimant-appellant to adduce further evidence to show that there was an amputation of her right hand. This proposition has been objected to by the learned Advocate for the respondent- Insurance Company. It appears to this Court that the claimant-appellant had sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence when the matter was pending before the learned Court. In fact, the doctor, being the general surgeon, who had attended the claimant-appellant at the district hospital concerned, did not give evidence anywhere about the amputation. It also appears that there is no medical record in evidence to show that there was any amputation. 4. In fact, the doctor, being the general surgeon, who had attended the claimant-appellant at the district hospital concerned, did not give evidence anywhere about the amputation. It also appears that there is no medical record in evidence to show that there was any amputation. 4. The learned Advocate for the claimant-appellant relies upon Exhibit-3 and submits that the said document shows that the claimant-appellant suffered 50% disability and the said certificate also shows that the claimant-appellant suffered traumatic disarticulation of elbow of the right hand. It, however, does not appear from the said Exhibit-3 that there was any amputation. It also does not appear that such disability is permanent in nature. 5. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court was quite right in coming to the finding regarding Exhibit-3. 6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant further submits that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the claimant-appellant was admitted at the hospital and, therefore, inference should be drawn that the stand taken by claimant-appellant is correct. 7. We cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, accept such submission as it appears that the learned court below has considered all the materials on record and we have also seen the oral and documentary evidence on record and we find that the claimant-appellant has failed to prove that it was a case of amputation. 8. In such circumstances, we do not intend to interfere with the impugned judgment/award on its merit except that the award already granted by the learned court below shall carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum in respect of the period commencing from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of deposit of the awarded amount. 9. The learned Advocate for the respective parties do not dispute the fact that the said awarded amount has already been deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company and the same has also been withdrawn by the claimant-appellant. The respondent-Insurance Company shall now calculate the interest amount, as indicated above, and issue an account payee cheque in favour of the claimant-appellant in respect of such interest amount and deposit such account payee cheque before the learned court below within six weeks. The respondent-Insurance Company shall now calculate the interest amount, as indicated above, and issue an account payee cheque in favour of the claimant-appellant in respect of such interest amount and deposit such account payee cheque before the learned court below within six weeks. After such account payee cheque is deposited, the office of the learned Court below shall disburse such cheque in favour of claimant/appellant in accordance with law and upon proper identification. 10. The appeal stands disposed of. 11. Let the lower court records be sent back to the learned court concerned immediately. Urgent certified xerox copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of necessary formalities.