JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.130/1992. By the said judgment and award, tribunal saddled the insurance company with the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application within 45 days, failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till its realization. Being aggrieved, insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: (i) Respondent is an injured in vehicular accident. On 28.9.1991, claimant was proceeding with his friend Sagar Gajanan Lakhe on motorcycle bearing No. BTB- 5454. Sagar was riding the motorcycle and injured was pillion rider. They reached near Steel Sales Corporation and stopped the motorcycle due to red signal. That time, truck bearing No.MOT-9277 came from rear side and gave a dash to motorcycle. Both Sagar and claimant fell down. Rider of motorcycle died on the spot. Claimant suffered serious injuries. (ii) Initially injured was admitted to Government Medical College and Hospital at Nagpur for four days. As he was resident of Bombay, he was shifted to Lincoln Nursing Home at Bombay. His right hand was operated there. Then he was shifted to Jaslok Hospital, Bombay. (iii) It was the case of claimant that he suffered 90% permanent disability. He was serving as an Electronic Engineer with Weightronic Private Limited, Bombay and getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,500/-. Due to disability, he could not continue his employment and was required to remain without job, as disability has affected his physical capacity to earn. According to claimant, disability was to such an extent that he could not marry. He is being maintained by his old mother. She is doing some petty work. Applicant submitted that permanent physical disability has caused serious inconvenience, disappointment, discomposure, frustration, mental stress and loss of confidence to him. He claimed Rs. 4,50,000/- towards compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act including interest thereon. (iv) The owner of vehicle was served with the notice. He remained absent and application proceeded ex-parte against him. (v) Respondent no.3/appellant resisted the petition vide written statement (Exh.14). He claimed Rs. 4,50,000/- towards compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act including interest thereon. (iv) The owner of vehicle was served with the notice. He remained absent and application proceeded ex-parte against him. (v) Respondent no.3/appellant resisted the petition vide written statement (Exh.14). It was contended that two vehicles were involved in the accident and owner and insurer of another motorcycle were also necessary parties. A plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was raised by insurer. Regarding occurrence of accident and liability of insurance company to pay compensation, defence was of total denial. (vi) From the rival pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed issues at Exh.22. Injured examined himself as a solitary witness. Insurance company did not examine any witness in support of its defence. Considering the evidence and documents placed on record, Tribunal came to the conclusion that owner and insurer were liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- particularized under various heads in paragraph 10 of the Award. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were directed to pay within 45 days with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application and on failure to deposit within time at the rate of 12% interest per annum from the date of application till its realization. 3. Appellant assails the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that compensation awarded as per clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) in paragraph 10 of the judgment is on too higher side. The submission is that Tribunal has relied upon disability certificate (Exh.39) issued by Medical Officer, Nair Hospital, Bombay and the said certificate was not duly proved in accordance with the law. Learned counsel submitted that author of permanent disability certificate was not examined and for failure to examine competent witness, Tribunal ought not to have relied upon disability certificate (Exh.39). In support of contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar alias Raju .vs. Yudhvir Singh and another [2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 21]. 4. The next submission on behalf of appellant is that injured could not prove loss of future income and amenities in life. In this regard, submission is that in the cross-examination, injured has admitted that he did not meet employer after accident and employer though met him did not ask to join duty. 4. The next submission on behalf of appellant is that injured could not prove loss of future income and amenities in life. In this regard, submission is that in the cross-examination, injured has admitted that he did not meet employer after accident and employer though met him did not ask to join duty. It is submitted that in the absence of any evidence to show that injured had attempted to join employment and he was unable to perform his duties, damages awarded towards loss of future income and loss of amenities in life are not just, proper and too much on higher side. 5. The third contention is regarding penal interest. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that imposition of penal interest is not statutorily permissible and, therefore, Tribunal was not justified in imposing penal interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Keshav Bahadur and others [2004 ACJ 648]. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-injured submitted that disability certificate was issued by Medical Officer of Nair Hospital, Bombay. The said certificate was referred and proved by the claimant in his evidence and still there is no cross-examination to that effect by the appellant. It is submitted that in the absence of cross-examination evidence of injured has remained unchallenged and the Tribunal was right in placing reliance on the disability certificate (Exh.39) to arrive at the conclusion that permanent disability was to the extent of 90%. The learned counsel submitted that in such a situation where there is no cross-examination at all, non-examination of Medical Officer would not affect the admissibility of permanent disability certificate in any way as the injured has duly proved that he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90%. 7. The next submission on behalf of respondent is that insurance company has admitted almost all the documents, except permanent disability certificate which ought to have been admitted by insurer, considering the nature of injuries not specifically denied in the written statement. 8. On penal interest, learned counsel submitted that insurance company failed to deposit the amount within time and injured has not received a single pie till date. 8. On penal interest, learned counsel submitted that insurance company failed to deposit the amount within time and injured has not received a single pie till date. It is submitted that there is no bar in law to award penal interest and the Tribunal was justified in imposing penal interest in case of failure to deposit the amount within 45 days. 9. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for respondent relied upon: (i) Bimla Devi and others .vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, [ AIR 2009 SC 2819 ]. (ii) D. Sampath .v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And another, [ AIR 2012 SC 544 ]. (iii) Rekha Jain .vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, [ (2013) 8 SCC 389 )]. (iv) New India Assurance Company Limited and another .vs. K. Abdullakutty and others, [II (1994) ACC 233 (DB). (v) Priti .vs. Chairman, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another, [2003 ACJ 289]. 10. In the case on hand, total compensation awarded to the injured as can be seen from paragraph 10 of the judgment is as follows: (i) Damages for expenses incurred on medical treatment and medicine. Rs.35,000/- (ii) Expenses incurred on special diet and conveyance. Rs.15,000/- (iii) Damages for loss of past and future income. Rs.2,00,000/- (iv) Damages for loss of amenities in the life Rs.1,50,000/- (v) Damages for loss of expectation of life Rs.1,00,000/- (vi) Damages for adverse effect on marriage prospects. Rs.25,000/- (vii) Damages for pain and sufferings of the accident. Rs.25,000/- Total Damages : Rs.5,50,000/- 11. As the appellant has not challenged Clauses (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) above, the controversy is limited to the compensation awarded vide Clauses (iii), (iv) and (v). 12. The moot question here is, whether applicant could prove percentage of permanent disability suffered by him. It can be seen from the evidence of injured Harshadlal that after accident, he was admitted to Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur for four days, then shifted to Lincoln Nursing Home at Bombay and from there to Jaslok Hospital. He had been to Nair Hospital for disability certificate. He states that Orthopedic Surgeon from Nair Hospital perused his medical papers, examined him, noted the details of examination on a case papers and assessed the disability of 90%. Accordingly, certificate (Exh.39) was issued to him. 13. Admittedly, author of the certificate is not examined. He had been to Nair Hospital for disability certificate. He states that Orthopedic Surgeon from Nair Hospital perused his medical papers, examined him, noted the details of examination on a case papers and assessed the disability of 90%. Accordingly, certificate (Exh.39) was issued to him. 13. Admittedly, author of the certificate is not examined. The question is, whether in the absence of evidence of author, permanent disability certificate is admissible in evidence. In Rajesh Kumar alias Raju (supra), controversy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was regarding admissibility of permanent disability certificate and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment observed thus: “9. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.” 14. In view of the above legal position, disability certificate (Exh.39) should have been proved by the Medical Officer of Nair Hospital, who issued the same. In the absence of evidence of author of permanent disability certificate, it cannot be said that the permanent disability certificate has been duly proved. 15. It is interesting to note that as per medical papers permanent disability is to the extent of 30% and 47%. In this backdrop, it was incumbent on injured to examine author of permanent disability certificate (Exh39). For want of evidence, disability certificate is required to be kept out of consideration. 16. 15. It is interesting to note that as per medical papers permanent disability is to the extent of 30% and 47%. In this backdrop, it was incumbent on injured to examine author of permanent disability certificate (Exh39). For want of evidence, disability certificate is required to be kept out of consideration. 16. Further question then arises is, whether injured could prove the injuries, permanent disablement and the extent of permanent disability by placing other material on record. The evidence of injured shows that his right hand was completely broken into pieces as truck had passed through his right hand. The accident was so serious that rider of motorcycle died on the spot. According to the injured, he was admitted in the Government Medical College and Hospital at Nagpur. He was inpatient for four days. Discharge card (Exh.35) corroborates his evidence. He also stated that from Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, he was shifted to Lincoln Nursing Home at Bombay. He was under treatment of Dr. Manwani for about 10 days. Exh.36 discharge card supports the evidence of injured. It is also evident from the evidence of injured that from Lincoln Hospital, he was shifted to Jaslok Hospital and remained as indoor patient at Jaslok Hospital. Discharge card (Exh.38) corroborates the evidence of injured. 17. So far as injuries are concerned, there is no cross-examination of the injured. Even there is no denial in cross-examination to the extent of injuries sustained by claimant. In the absence of cross-examination and as evidence of claimant has gone unchallenged, it can be safely concluded that applicant has suffered injuries in a vehicular accident resulting to permanent disability. 18. As regards compensation awarded towards loss of past and future income, loss of amenities in life and loss of expectation of life, contention of appellant is that injured never approached the employer after accident to join his duties and even employer did not ask him to resume duty. The submission is that for want of proof compensation awarded under Clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of para 10 is exorbitant and the same needs to be just and reasonable. 19. It is not in dispute that injured was an Electronic Engineer serving with Weightronic Private Limited at Bombay. He was processing his further studies is also not in dispute. The evidence of injured that he was getting salary of Rs. 19. It is not in dispute that injured was an Electronic Engineer serving with Weightronic Private Limited at Bombay. He was processing his further studies is also not in dispute. The evidence of injured that he was getting salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month is supported by salary certificate (Exh.32) which has gone uncontroverted. In the light of this cogent evidence, Tribunal assessed the compensation vide Clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of para 10 of the judgment. 20. The age of injured, as can be seen from the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was 23 years at the relevant time. Accident occurred in 1991, Claim Petition was filed in 1992, the same was decided in 2003 and the present appeal is being taken up in 2017. Applicant has now crossed 50. He has lost the important long years of his life. He could not even marry and remained dependent on his old mother despite having high educational qualification at his credit. Thus, considering the overall facts duly established by the injured, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal is incorrect, unjust or illegal. 21. So far as penal interest is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Keshav Bahadur and others (supra) held in para 14 as under: “14. Though Section 110-CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the New Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to the imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to the imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal”. 22. It is clear from the above that penal interest cannot be levied in default of payment of compensation within a specific period. The contention of appellant to this extent that Tribunal committed an error in awarding penal interest in case of failure to deposit the amount within 45 days, therefore, needs to be accepted and order of imposing penal interest deserves to be set aside. So far as rest of the order is concerned, it needs no interference as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found just, fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) First Appeal No.197 of 2006 is partly allowed to the extent of imposition of penal interest. (ii) The order awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization is quashed and set aside. (iii) Rest of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is maintained. (iv) No costs.