JUDGMENT : The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited has challenged the legality of the award, dated 20.05.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT- IX, Harapanahalli, whereby for the injuries sustained by Smt. Sharadamma, the claimant/respondent, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,79,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 18.02.2009, the claimant – respondent, along with others, was on the way (as pedestrian or pad yatre) to attend the festival of Sri Kottureshwara Swamy, at Kottur town, in Kudligi Taluk. Around 8.00 p.m., when the respondent and others, were near the Chapparadahalli Village on Kottur-Harapanahalli Road, the driver of a private bus, bearing Reg.No.KA-17/A-7227, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the claimant - respondent. The claimant-respondent was immediately rushed to the Government Hospital at Kottur for treatment. Thereafter, she was admitted to Davanagere Hospital. After recovering from the accident, the claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. In order to support her case, she examined herself and Dr. Mahesh Babu, as PW.2, and submitted 130 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company did not examine any witness, but submitted a single document. After assessing the evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company. 3. Mrs. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal is not justified in taking the extent of disability as 40%. For, neither the treating Doctor, nor the Neurologist was examined by the claimant - respondent. The claimant - respondent had merely examined Dr. Mahesh Babu (PW.2), a Consultant Psychiatrist, practicing at Davanagere. Therefore, the claimant - respondent had failed to prove the extent of her disability caused due to the accident. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Mahesh R.Uppin, the learned counsel for the claimant – respondent, has pleaded that Dr.Mahesh Babu (P.W.2), had not only spoken about the mental condition of the claimant - respondent after having suffered severe head injuries, but had also given scientific and logical reasons for concluding that she was suffering from a disability of 40%. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Mahesh R.Uppin, the learned counsel for the claimant – respondent, has pleaded that Dr.Mahesh Babu (P.W.2), had not only spoken about the mental condition of the claimant - respondent after having suffered severe head injuries, but had also given scientific and logical reasons for concluding that she was suffering from a disability of 40%. Therefore, the witness had clearly spoken about the affect of the injuries suffered by the claimant - respondent. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the disability suffered by the claimant - respondent to the extent of 40%. Therefore, learned counsel has supported the impugned award. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. Admittedly, Dr. Mahesh Babu (PW.2), is a Psychiatrist, and was not the treating Doctor of the claimant - respondent. However, as a Psychiatrist he has been able to adjudge the effect of head injuries on the functioning of the brain. He has issued a certificate which is as under: “CERTIFICATE This is to certify that I have examined Smt. Sharadamma, aged about 41 years. Who presented with h/o socially withdrawn behaviour, not motivated to work, crying to self, decreased personal care, impaired occupational functioning, since the time she met with head injury in an RTA, in feb. 2009. Clinical examination shows decreased psychamator activity lack of spontaneity in both vergal and motor activities, lack of personal care, depressed and dysphoric affect. Cognitive functions were assessed in detail using MMSE (Mini Mental State Examination) and STRUBB AND BLACK composite mental state examination proforma. The findings are as follows: Attention aroused, concentration ill sustained Impaired immediate, recent and remote memory Impaired visual memory Impaired constructional ability. Disability as assessed using IDEAS (Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment scale) is about 70 to 80% with a total disability score of 14, indicating severe disability. The above findings suggest Organic Brain Damage, possibly due to head injury.” 7. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that on the basis of MMSE and on the basis of Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale (IDEAS), the score of disability is 14, which comes under the category of severe disability having total disability of 70-80%. He has further specifically stated that his findings suggest Organic Brain Damage, possibly due to head injury. He has further specifically stated that his findings suggest Organic Brain Damage, possibly due to head injury. Thus, the witness has shown co-relation between the head injury suffered by the claimant – respondent, and the impact of such head injury on her mental state. Therefore, the validity and veracity of the testimony of Dr. Mahesh Babu (PW.2) is not denuded by the non-examination of the treating Doctor. 8. Moreover, learned Tribunal has recorded the fact that the Presiding Officer who has passed the impugned award was the same Presiding Officer who had recorded the testimony of the claimant - respondent. The learned Tribunal has clearly recorded the demur of the witness. The Presiding Officer has noticed that “there was loss of speech and also movements and reactions of the petitioner were abnormal”. Therefore, learned Tribunal had the benefit of observing the demur of the witness. Hence, taking the testimony of Dr. Mahesh Babu (PW.2), and the personal observation of the judicial officer himself, the learned Tribunal has assessed the extent of disability to be 40%. Thus, the Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons for concluding that the extent of disability is 40%. The reason given by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted by this Court. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel is unsustainable. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is hereby dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned counsel for the respondent had filed an application for bringing additional evidence on record. However, due to the objections being raised by the Registry, and since the objections were not complied with by the learned counsel for the claimant - respondent, this appeal was hanging fire for a period of two years from 20.04.2015 till the present. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant - respondent should not be paid the interest amount for the said period. The contention raised by the learned counsel is certainly reasonable one. For the claimant – respondent cannot take the benefit of their wrong. Therefore, while the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 9%, it is not required to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. for the period from 20.04.2015 till 12.09.2017. For the claimant – respondent cannot take the benefit of their wrong. Therefore, while the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 9%, it is not required to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. for the period from 20.04.2015 till 12.09.2017. The amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the said amount to the claimant - respondent within a period of two weeks therefrom.