JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. 1. The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 29-6-2012 passed in MVC No. 1687 of 2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court IV, Belgaum. 2. The respondent herein filed the claim petition contending that, on 12-6-2008 while he was proceeding in Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. KA-22/S-422 towards his medical shop, near Sardar High School, an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-22/A-6552 came from the hind side of the motorcycle and dashed against the said vehicle. Due to the impact, the rider of the motorbike sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Vijaya Hospital at Belagavi. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 15 days. In the claim petition, it was contended that the claimant owned a Medical Shop at Gondhali Galli, Belagavi. Due to the said accident, he was out of employment for a period of six months and sought for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. The respondent entered appearance. However, the second respondent-insurer filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the Insurance Company. 4. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence framed necessary issues. The claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents at Exs. P. 1 to P. 17. On behalf of the respondents none of the witness have been examined. However, the Insurance Policy was marked as Ex. R. 1 with the consent of the parties. 5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence and taking into consideration copy of MVI report, spot panchanama and copy of the complaint held that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw and hence the claimant is entitled for the compensation. 6. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident the claimant has sustained fracture of left radius at its lower 3rd and fracture of left ulna. He had undergone operation and implants are inserted. In view of the fracture, he cannot lift the heavy object. 6. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident the claimant has sustained fracture of left radius at its lower 3rd and fracture of left ulna. He had undergone operation and implants are inserted. In view of the fracture, he cannot lift the heavy object. The doctor who has treated the claimant assessed the disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 35 years. The driving licence of the claimant has been produced as Ex. P. 7. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance and diet Rs. 37,000/- towards medical expenses Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period Rs. 5,000/- towards attendance charges and Rs. 1,27,000/- towards the loss of earning capacity, taking into consideration the income as Rs. 79,290/- per year, disability to an extent of 10% and applying the multiplier 16, in all awarded a sum of Rs. 2,33,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. The appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation filed this appeal. 7. Sri Naganagouda Kuppelur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. The compensation awarded towards loss of earning capacity is on the higher side. Even after the accident, the claimant has continued his business of Pharmasist and hence the compensation of Rs. 1,27,000/- awarded towards loss of earning capacity is contrary to law. The rate of interest at 9% awarded by the Tribunal is also contrary to law. 8. Though the contesting respondent is served with notice, he remained unrepresented. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 10. The record clearly disclose that, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending autorickshaw, the accident occurred on 12-6-2008 and the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his left hand. He has undergone operation and implants are inserted. He was inpatient for a period of 15 days. Thereafter, he had taken treatment for six months. He was out of employment for a period of six months. He has undergone operation and implants are inserted. He was inpatient for a period of 15 days. Thereafter, he had taken treatment for six months. He was out of employment for a period of six months. The doctor who treated him had assessed the disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body. On the basis of the said assessment of disability, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the income of Rs. 79,290/- per year on the basis of the income tax returns, applying the multiplier 16, since the claimant is aged about 35 years as on the date of accident and taking the disability to an extent of 10% awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,26,864/- which was rounded off to Rs. 1,27,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. In view of the accident and the injuries sustained, the claimant had undergone operation to the left hand. The rod was inserted. In view of that, he cannot lift any heavy objects. He was a pharmasist in profession. He cannot use both the hands. The Tribunal taking into consideration that he has to carry on with 10% disability throughout his life, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the said judgment and award. However, the rate of interest awarded is on the higher side. Usually, the Tribunal is awarding the interest only at the rate of 6% p.a. But in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded interest of 9% p.a. No reason has been assigned for awarding 9% interest. Except modifying the rate of interest from 9% to 6%, in all other aspects, the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal remains unaltered. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part only in respect of the rate of interest is concerned. The claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal. The amount in deposit is transferred to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum.