JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard Mr. AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. Also heard Mr. KK Bhatta, learned counsel for Respondent No.6. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 02.07.2011 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 951/99 praying for enhancement of the award. 3. The appellant, as claimant, preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for the injury he sustained in a road traffic accident. The case of the appellant-claimant is that on 9.4.99, while he was travelling in a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01/D-2733 (Bus) from Guwahati to Nagaon, at that time, a truck bearing Registration No. MN-01/4829 coming from the opposite direction collided with the bus, as a result of which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his person. 4. The learned Tribunal issued notice to the driver, owner as well as insurer of both the vehicles and, in turn, both the insurance companies of the respective vehicles contested the case by filing their written statements. The owner and driver of the respective vehicles did not contest the case and, therefore, the case proceeded ex-parte against them. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : "1. Whether claimant, Sri Balchand Rampuria, sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated 09.04.99 involving vehicle No. AS-01/D-2733 and MN-01-4829 and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the offending vehicles ? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation for the injuries sustained by him and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable ?" 6. During the course of the proceedings, the claimant examined himself as witness. The United India Insurance Company also examined one witness from their side. On examination of the evidence on record as well as the documents exhibited, the learned Tribunal finally held that the offending truck bearing Registration No. MN-01-4829 is liable for the accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle. The United India Insurance Company also examined one witness from their side. On examination of the evidence on record as well as the documents exhibited, the learned Tribunal finally held that the offending truck bearing Registration No. MN-01-4829 is liable for the accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle. As the vehicle was duly insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, the said insurance company was directed to indemnify the award. 7. Regarding the compensation as prayed for, the learned Tribunal has examined all the relevant documents including the medical documents like admission and discharge certificates, medical vouchers and disability certificates that were produced before the learned Tribunal. 8. It was the evidence of the appellant-claimant that he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and he had to undertake prolonged treatment for the multiple fracture injuries sustained by him in the accident. In support of the fact that the appellant-claimant suffered from permanent disability, the appellant submitted various documents vide Exhinit-53 series. From the disability certificate issued by the Social Welfare Department and Railway Concession Certificate, it appears that the appellant-claimant sustained 80% permanent disability due to paralysis of the right side upper and lower limb. On the basis of the same and having regard to the evidence and documents available on record and considering the nature of disability suffered by the appellant, the learned Tribunal has held that loss of earning capacity of the claimant cannot be less than 50%. Having regard to the documents that have been filed before the Tribunal and the fact that the claimant suffered from permanent disability due to paralysis of right side, such an assessment of 50% disability affecting the earning capacity appears to be proper. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that while assessing the amount, the multiplier taken by the Tribunal is not proper which should be 14 instead of 11 as the appellant-claimant was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. A prayer has been to enhance the rate of interest, apart from awarding all the medical expenses that have been incurred by the appellant-claimant from the date of fling the claim petition. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has contended that the claimant himself failed to adduce evidence before the Tribunal for a long period after filing of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has contended that the claimant himself failed to adduce evidence before the Tribunal for a long period after filing of the case. So, he is not entitled to get interest from the date of filing of the petition. It has been pointed out that the case was filed in the year 1999, but the evidence was adduced in the year 2008 only. It has also been contended that the claimant is not entitled to get higher interest as prayed for in view of his own conduct. Regarding the medical expenses incurred, it has been submitted that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the expenses incurred by the claimant and the same need no interference. 11. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. I have also gone through the LCR. On examination of the record, it is found to be true that the case was filed on 17.11.99 and ultimately evidence was recorded in the year 2008. On further examination of the documents on record, it reveals that as on the date of accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years, but by the time disability certificate was issued by the Social Welfare Department, he attained the age of 54 years and, accordingly, the Tribunal has calculated loss of earning on the basis of his age as mentioned in the said certificate (Exhibit-53) that was issued in the year 2007. In the fitness of things, age of the claimant as on the date of accident should have been assessed by the Tribunal and, in that case, appropriate multiplier will be 14 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 12. From the medical evidence that have been annexed, it appears that the appellantclaimant was under medical treatment for several months. Initially he was treated at Guwahati and, thereafter, at Kolkata upto 6.9.99 i.e. around 5 months (as per medical documents). Considering the nature of injuries sustained, incurring of miscellaneous expenses during the days of treatment cannot be denied. 13. 12. From the medical evidence that have been annexed, it appears that the appellantclaimant was under medical treatment for several months. Initially he was treated at Guwahati and, thereafter, at Kolkata upto 6.9.99 i.e. around 5 months (as per medical documents). Considering the nature of injuries sustained, incurring of miscellaneous expenses during the days of treatment cannot be denied. 13. Considering all above, the following calculation is now made towards appropriate amount to be awarded to the appellant-claimant by taking the appropriate multiplier : By taking the age of the claimant as 45 years and applying the multiplier of 14 and taking the monthly income as Rs. 3000/-, loss of earning capacity of the claimant is calculated at Rs. 2,52,000/-. That apart, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded for the pain and sufferings and another Rs. 50,000/- is granted under the heading 'miscellaneous expenses' incurred by the claimant. The amount of Rs. 49,000/- towards medical expenses as assessed earlier is also kept intact. 14. The New India Assurance Company is accordingly directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 4,01,000/- to the claimant by adjusting the amount already paid (i.e. Rs. 2,77,000/-) together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of award i.e. 2.7.2011. The amount shall be deposited before the learned Tribunal within six weeks from today. The claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount on proper identification.