Mir Dara Sheko, J. 1. None appears on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the appellant is present who preferred this appeal challenging the compensation award passed by the learned Judge, 10th M.A.C. Tribunal, City Civil Court, Calcutta in M.J.C. Case No. 25 of 2002 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Fact in brief is that the claimant/appellant, Sukumar Chakraborty met with a road accident on 6th May, 2001 caused by a Motor Cycle bearing No. WB-01-R-0313 resulting grievous injury for which though he treated but sustained 30% permanent disability. The appellant, therefore, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. Learned Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence adduced before him restricted the compensation award to the tune of Rs.15,000/- with a direction upon the respondent/insurance company to pay the same within 60 days from 3rd September, 2007 failing which the respondent/insurance company, namely, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., P-4, Dobson Lane, Howrah, shall pay the award with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 8th January, 2002 till recovery of the entire sum. 4. Heard Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the appellant who apart from the grounds taking in the memorandum of appeal invited our attention that the learned Tribunal ought to have passed an order of interest from the date of filing of the claim application and not by imposing failing clause. 5. We have scrutinized the materials on record and the observations of the learned Trial Court, from where we took note that despite permanent disability of 30%, the appellant was not removed from his service and thereby there was no reduction from his salary meaning there was no financial loss. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that although took note of the disablement certificate produced by the appellant which was not issued by any Board constituted for that purpose rather it was issued by retired doctor. But accepting the fact of accident and sustenance of injury of the appellant took rather lenient view in granting the award, although “no account has yet been furnished” by the appellant to show before the Tribunal as to what actual expenditure was incurred for the treatment after the accident. But accepting the fact of accident and sustenance of injury of the appellant took rather lenient view in granting the award, although “no account has yet been furnished” by the appellant to show before the Tribunal as to what actual expenditure was incurred for the treatment after the accident. Learned Tribunal also took note that in the left side column of the letterhead of the certificate, there was some interpolation for which no explanation was given. None-the-less, all such materials apparently against the appellant while the Tribunal has chose not to grant award to the extent of Rs.15,000/- in a non-fatal case and taking lenient view in respect of 30% permanent disability, we find no legal reason to make any interference but to direct the respondent/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated upon the said sum of Rs.15,000/- with effect from 8th January, 2002 till date of payment and the sum, if the same has not been paid by this time, has to be calculated in lieu of interest shall be deposited by the respondent/insurance company before learned Judge, 10th M.A.C. Tribunal, City Civil Court, Calcutta in M.J.C. Case No. 25 of 2002 within one month from date of communication of a certified copy of this order which shall be communicated by the learned Counsel for the appellant since none appears on behalf of the respondents before this Court today at the time of passing this order. The award under challenge is accordingly modified. 6. Since the appeal has been disposed of, the connected application being CAN 2634 of 2011 is also disposed of. 7. Let a copy of this order be also communicated to the learned Judge, 10th M.A.C. Tribunal, City Civil Court, Calcutta for information and necessary action. If lower court records has been received by any order of this Court, let the same be sent back. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel for the appellant.