JUDGMENT : Indira Banerjee, J. This appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited is against the judgment and award dated 17th August, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Case Tribunal, 4th Fast Track Court, at Alipore in Motor Accident Claim Case No.102 of 2012 being an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the respondent No.1, Shri Sandip Routh @ Rahul Routh, hereinafter referred to as the respondent claimant, claiming compensation for his permanent disability by reason of an accident involving a Maruti Van bearing registration No. WB42N 8895 owned by one Shyamal Saha, being the respondent No.2, and covered by a policy of insurance issued by the appellant, the National Insurance Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the appellant insurer. 2. It appears that an auto rickshaw in which the claimant respondent was travelling, was hit by the said Maruti Van which was being driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The accident resulted in permanent disability of the claimant respondent, to the extent of 80% as per medical opinion. 3. The claim application was contested by the appellant insurer by filing a written statement. The defence to the claim is summarised herein below in a nutshell :- (i) Claim was not legally maintainable in its existing form. (ii) Claimant had not disclosed the number of the auto rickshaw or the name of its owner or other particulars including whether the auto was insured or not. (iii) Claim case was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties being the owner and insurer of the auto rickshaw. (iv) In the absence of the owner and the insurer of the auto rickshaw, the question of apportionment of compensation could not be determined. (v) Claim petition did not disclose particulars of how the accident causing injury of the respondent claimant took place. 4. All the material, averments and/or allegations in the claim petition were denied and/or not admitted and the claimant respondent was put to proof of the same. 5. There is not a whisper of why the claim application was not maintainable in the form in which the same had been made. 4. All the material, averments and/or allegations in the claim petition were denied and/or not admitted and the claimant respondent was put to proof of the same. 5. There is not a whisper of why the claim application was not maintainable in the form in which the same had been made. Since the claimant respondent claimed that the accident had been caused due to the fault of the Maruti Van insured by the appellant insurer, which was being driven recklessly, in high speed and compensation claimed against the owner insurer of the said Maruti Van. The omission to mention the number of the auto rickshaw or the name of its owner was inconsequential. It was immaterial whether the auto rickshaw was insured at all. In any case the owner and the insurer of the auto rickshaw were neither necessary nor proper parties, in the absence of any claim against them. 6. Further more, it is well settled that in case of joint tort, compensation may be claimed from either tortfeasor as held by the Supreme Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2015 ACJ 1441 . When two or more motor vehicles are responsible for an accident, compensation may be claimed from owner and/or insurer of either vehicle. 7. By the judgment and award under appeal the learned Tribunal awarded the respondent claimant compensation of Rs.24,13,870/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 8. The claimant respondent himself gave evidence in the learned Tribunal. He stated that the vehicle in question which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the auto rickshaw while the claimant respondent was paying the fare after getting down from the auto rickshaw. 9. One Ashis Dey, brother-in-law of the victim also corroborated that he had got out of the auto rickshaw and was standing on the footpath and his brother-in-law, the victim of the accident, was paying the fare of the auto rickshaw when the Maruti Van hit the auto rickshaw. 10. As a result of the accident the claimant respondent suffered bone fracture of left femur, head injury and injuries all over his person, as a result of which he became permanently disabled. 11. 10. As a result of the accident the claimant respondent suffered bone fracture of left femur, head injury and injuries all over his person, as a result of which he became permanently disabled. 11. The claimant respondent was apparently treated in different hospitals including Chinsurah Hospital, the renowned S.S.K.M. Hospital, a premier Government hospital, Mohan Clinic, A.M.R.I. Hospital and VYDEHI Hospital at Bangalore. 12. The witness No.3, the representative of Mohan Clinic, the Witness No.4, an executive-in-charge of the medical records of A.M.R.I. Hospital Dhakuria and the Witness No.5, a clerk attached with S.S.K.M. Hospital, proved that the appellant had been treated in those hospitals. Original documents of VYDEHI Hospital at Bangalore were before the learned Tribunal as also original bills of the other hospitals and clinics. The Witness No.5, Rajib Das, an employee of Emami Frank Ross proved the medicine bills. 13. The Maruti Van was apparently ceased along with documents including insurance certificate policy, tax token and the driving licence of its driver valid till 10th December, 2012. The driver obviously had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the Maruti Van was insured. 14. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record found that the accident had taken place due to the fault and negligence of the Maruti Van insured by the appellant insurer. 15. The learned Tribunal also found on the basis of medical evidence that the claimant respondent had become permanently disabled to the extent of 80% as a result of the accident. 16. The involvement of the Maruti Van in the accident is not disputed. It is contended that the auto rickshaw was also involved and there was contributory negligence on the part of the auto rickshaw. 17. The learned Tribunal found that the claimant/respondent had incurred medical expenses of Rs.5,14,347.27/- and Rs.1,99,816.29/- for his admission and treatment at AMRI Hospital, expenditure to the tune of Rs.31,500/- for his treatment at Mohan Clinic, expenditure of Rs.8,561/- for his treatment S.S.K.M Hospital and Rs.1,00,355/- for his treatment at VYDEHI Hospital, Bangalore from 13th February, 2012 to 27th July, 2012. The documents of VYDEHI were not proved by the claimant/respondent but the original document had been sent by the hospital to the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that Rs.3,895/- had been incurred for purchasing expenses. The documents of VYDEHI were not proved by the claimant/respondent but the original document had been sent by the hospital to the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that Rs.3,895/- had been incurred for purchasing expenses. The learned Tribunal found that the medical expenditure incurred by the claimant/respondent amounted to Rs.8,58,474.56/- [Rs.5,14,347.27/- (AMRI) plus Rs.1,99,816.29 (AMRI), Rs.31,500/- (Mohan Clinic), Rs.3,895/- (medicines), Rs.8,561/- (S.S.K.M) plus Rs.1,00,355/- (VYDEHI Hospital, Bangalore)]. 18. Further, in consideration of the evidence, the learned Tribunal found that the claimant respondent was an employee of Bhabani Developers Ltd. earning salary of Rs.9,500/- per month. 19. Applying the multiplier 17 applicable to the age group of 30-35 as per the Second Schedule the learned Tribunal found that 80% (considering the percentage of disablement) would come to Rs.15,50,400/-. In addition, the claimant/respondent was awarded Rs.5,000/- for the pain and suffering. The claimant/respondent was awarded total compensation of Rs.24,13,874/- along with Simple Interest at 6% per annum. 20. The Tribunal deciding a claim case is obliged to award compensation which is just and fair. Just compensation might be awarded even if the amount awarded exceeds the amount claimed. This proposition finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir and Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 2742 and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh reported in 2003 ACJ 12 (SC). In deciding an application for compensation under Section 166, the learned Tribunal has an inquisitorial role. The Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to hold an inquiry into claim for determining the just compensation as held in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. reported in 2011 ACJ 1 . The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can access the just compensation. It is obliged to award just and proper compensation irrespective of what has been claimed. 21. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Supreme Court held : "(9) Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. 21. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Supreme Court held : "(9) Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas, non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; and (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; and (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 22. It is also now well settled that in computing compensation, it is not the percentage of disability as per medical report, but the percentage of functional disability which is material. Thus, in a case of amputation even total compensation might be awarded. 23. In Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2013 ACJ 2161 , the Supreme Court found that a promising model whose face was completely disfigured by the reason of the accident would have to be treated as 100% disabled considering her vocation even though she may not be 100% disabled in medical terms. 24. The learned Tribunal has taken the disability as 80% as per medical report. The learned Tribunal has only awarded compensation which is by way of reimbursement of medical costs apart from compensation of Rs.5,000/- only towards pain and suffering. 25. May be, as argued by Mr. Ganguly, appearing on behalf of the appellant, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation in excess of what had been claimed. 26. The learned Tribunal has only awarded compensation which is by way of reimbursement of medical costs apart from compensation of Rs.5,000/- only towards pain and suffering. 25. May be, as argued by Mr. Ganguly, appearing on behalf of the appellant, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation in excess of what had been claimed. 26. However, that is inconsequential, since compensation on account of pecuniary loss has been computed as per the principles laid down in the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and compensation for medical expenses is supported by bills and vouchers which have duly been proved. In case of the Bangalore Hospital, there may not have been oral evidence. However, the original medical bill had been sent by the Hospital and the learned Tribunal accepted the medical bill. 27. We find no infirmity at all with the judgment and award under appeal which is on the modest side. In Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 the Supreme Court found that there were errors in the multiplier in the Second Schedule and held that the multiplier 16 should be applied to the age group of 30 to 35 years. The applicable multiplier should, therefore, have been 16 and not 17. However, since compensation on account of non-pecuniary losses such as loss of amenities of life is only Rs.5,000. We do not deem it appropriate to interfere of the multiplier. A higher amount might have been awarded for loss of amenities of life in addition to actual pecuniary loss and reimbursement of medical expenses. 28. In its judgment dated 15th January, 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 2015 arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 4897-4898 of 2014 (Smt. Neeta W/O Kallappa Kadolkar and others v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, the Supreme Court held that "11. The appellants are also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals at the rate of 9% p.a. along with the amount under the different heads as indicated above. The courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded by them to the appellants without following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). The courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded by them to the appellants without following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). Accordingly, we award the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation determined in these appeals from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment." 29. Similarly in Surti Gupta v. United India Assurance Co. and another being Civil Appeal No. 2933 of 2015 arising out of SLPC No. 1868 of 2014, the Supreme Court held that the High Court has erred in awarding an interest at the rate of 6% per annum only, instead of 9% per annum on the compensation amount as per the principles laid by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy. 30. We accordingly deem it appropriate to direct that the award shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, till payment of the awarded amount, to be computed as per reducing balance, if applicable. 31. The learned Registrar General shall disburse the amount lying in deposit with him to the claimant/respondent forthwith and in any case within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order subject however to the requisite formalities of identification etc. It is recorded that pursuant to an interim order of this Court a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been released to the respondent claimant. The appellant insurer will be entitled to adjustment of the aforesaid sum. The balance interest/amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this award. 32. The appeal is, thus, disposed of.