JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ajay Singh, Advocate, for appellant and perused the record. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") has been preferred by National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "defendant-appellant") aggrieved by judgment and award dated 01.11.2017 passed by Sri Smt. Adesh Nain, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1304 of 2012 awarding compensation of Rs. 7,73,084/- to claimant-respondent along with simple interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum. 3. Claimant-respondent, Subhash Chandra, riding motorcycle, was going from his residence to Bhorakhurd, District Muzaffar Nagar on 23.08.2012 when at around 3.00 PM, at the turn of Bhorakhurd Shahpur, Bus No. HR-46/A-0563, driven negligently by Driver dashed his Motorcycle causing serious injuries to claimant. He was taken to Hospital but despite treatment has suffered complete disability and therefore instituted aforesaid Claim Petition for awarding compensation of Rs. 24,83,000/- with 18 per cent interest. 4. Defendant-1, Sri Anuj Kumar, owner of Tort feasing bus contested Claim Petition by filing written statement. He admitted that he is registered owner of vehicle which was duly insured with appellant-company and on the fateful day, bus was being driven by defendant-3, i.e. Sri Ravindra, son of Joginder, who possessed a valid driving licence. However, he denied factum of accident and also said that compensation claimed is highly excessive. 5. Defendant-3 also filed written statement taking a similar defence as that of owner. 6. Insurance Company, in its separate written statement, stated that claimant has not given details of Insurance Cover Note or Policy in respect to Tort feasor vehicle and onus to prove the facts stated in Claim Petition lie upon claimant. 7. In support of claim, five witnesses were examined, namely, claimant himself as PW-1, Dr. R.P. Mishra, PW-2, and three other witnesses, i.e., Pramod Kumar, PW-3, Shashi Kant Tyagi, PW-4 and Pawan Malik, PW-5. On behalf of defendants, no witness was examined. 8. 7. In support of claim, five witnesses were examined, namely, claimant himself as PW-1, Dr. R.P. Mishra, PW-2, and three other witnesses, i.e., Pramod Kumar, PW-3, Shashi Kant Tyagi, PW-4 and Pawan Malik, PW-5. On behalf of defendants, no witness was examined. 8. Tribunal framed four issues as under: ^^1- D;k fnukad 23-08-2012 dks ;kph eksVj lkbfdy ls HkkSajk [kqnZ ls vius ?kj tk jgk Fkk tc og le; djhc 03-00 cts ih0,e0 HkkSajk dyk 'kkgiqj dh rjg eqM+k rks eqtQ~Qjuxj] cq<kuk jksM dh rjQ ls cl la0&,p0vkj0&46&,&0563 ds pkyd us cl dks rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj ;kph dh eksVj lkbfdy esa Vddj ekj nh] ftlls ;kph lqHkk"k dks xaHkhj pksVsa vk;h\ 2- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; mDr dfFkr cl ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Mh0,y0 Fkk\ 3- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; mDr dfFkr cl fof/kor chfer Fkh rFkk okgu ds lHkh izi= nq?kZVuk ds le; oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Fks\ 4- D;k ;kph izfrdj ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gka rks fdruk vkSj fdl foi{kh ls\^^ "1. Whether, the petitioner on 23.08.2012 was going home from Bhaura Khurd on a motorcycle and when he, at around 3 PM turned towards Bhaura Kala Shahpur, the driver of Bus no. HR 46A 0563, coming from the side of Budhana Road, Muzaffarnagar, by way of rash and negligent driving caused it to hit the motorcycle of petitioner Subhash, causing grave injuries to him? 2. Whether the driver of the said bus, at the time of accident, had a valid and effective D.L.? 3. Whether the said bus, at the time of accident, was duly insured and all its papers were valid and effective? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from which respondent?" (English Translation by Court) 9. Issue-1 was answered in favour of claimant holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by defendant-3. Issue-2 was also answered by holding that driving licence of defendant-3 was valid. Similarly Issue-3 was answered in affirmence holding that Tort Feasor Vehicle was insured with appellant-company. Now coming to Issue-4, Tribunal found multiple fractures in the right let, head and finger of right hand and also that muscles were badly crushed; Claimant was admitted in Vardhman Trauma Centre, Muzaffar Nagar where he was operated by Dr. Mukesh Jain; and thereafter due to serious head injuries, he was admitted in Jaswant Rai Hospital, Meerut where Dr. Now coming to Issue-4, Tribunal found multiple fractures in the right let, head and finger of right hand and also that muscles were badly crushed; Claimant was admitted in Vardhman Trauma Centre, Muzaffar Nagar where he was operated by Dr. Mukesh Jain; and thereafter due to serious head injuries, he was admitted in Jaswant Rai Hospital, Meerut where Dr. Bhupendra Chaudhary administered treatment. The medical expenses bills worth Rs. 2,50,899/- were submitted in evidence and duly proved. Tribunal has considered level of disability as 25 per cent and by applying multiplier of 15 on claimant's age of 42, and taking income as Rs. 11,493/- per month on the basis of salary slips issued by Claimant's employer where he was working as Cane Clerk, compensation was determined as Rs. 7,73,084/-. 10. Learned counsel for appellant contended that disability was not proved by obtaining a certificate from Medical Board though serious injuries suffered by claimant in the aforesaid accident duly proved by claimant-respondent could not be disputed by adducing any otherwise evidence by Insurance Company at all. On repeated query, learned counsel for appellant also could not place any provision providing that level of disability cannot be accepted unless a disability certificate is issued by a Medical Board. Moreover, under the heads of mental pain, sufferance etc. Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5000/-. 11. Learned counsel for appellant, however, relied on Supreme Court's judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another (2011) 1 SCC 343 to contend that medical certificate issued by every doctor cannot be accepted unless disability is proved by adducing a certificate of an expert and genuine doctor. As a proposition, no one can doubt that there are number of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured used to give liberally disability certificates to help them for claiming compensation and such certificates ought not to be relied by Tribunal for awarding compensation. But here is not such a case. Medical certificate was issued by one Dr. R.P. Mishra, a retired Chief Medical Officer and his professional capability and genuineness was neither disputed before Tribunal nor any evidence otherwise was placed and the Tribunal has also not found that certificate was not issued by a genuine and responsible medical practitioner. 12. But here is not such a case. Medical certificate was issued by one Dr. R.P. Mishra, a retired Chief Medical Officer and his professional capability and genuineness was neither disputed before Tribunal nor any evidence otherwise was placed and the Tribunal has also not found that certificate was not issued by a genuine and responsible medical practitioner. 12. Moreover, in the case of personal injuries, compensation is to be awarded in various heads and we may recollect here the observations made by Supreme Court in judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) clarifying heads under which compensation need be awarded in personal injuries cases, as under: "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life." 13. The percentage of disability certified in medical terms has been considered and Courts have observed that percentage of disability in respect of a part of body does not mean the same percentage with respect to whole body and it may be different. Para 9 of judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) said as under: "9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. Para 9 of judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) said as under: "9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%." (emphasis added) 14. Court also castigated that Tribunals wrongly assume that percentage of permanent disability is same in terms of percentage of loss of future earning capacity. The two aspects are different. Relevant observations in para 10 of the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) are reproduced as under: "10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation." (emphasis added) 15. Court also held that in some cases evidence and assessment may show that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of permanent disability is approximately the same as percentage of permanent disability and in that case said percentage for determination of compensation may be adopted but it is not always. It is in this context Court further said that in order to determine, whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such disability, a Tribunal should consider, and decide, with reference to evidence: "(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person." 16. It was also observed that ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability on actual earning capacity involves three steps. First is to ascertain what activities claimant could carry on inspite of permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability. The second is to ascertain claimant's avocation, profession and nature of work before accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or despite permanent disability, claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on and whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 17. 17. The role of Tribunal was elaborated by observing that it is not a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit. It is an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to hold an enquiry into the claim for determining 'just compensation'. Tribunal should take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess 'just compensation'. Court also observed that when a doctor gives evidence about percentage of permanent disability, Tribunal must find out whether such percentage of disability is functional disability with reference to whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. In para 19 of the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) Court summarized the principles in respect of "permanent disability" and assessment of compensation and in para 20 it gives certain illustrations in regard to assessment of loss of future earning. Same are reproduced as under: "19. We may now summarize the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following illustrations: Illustration 'A': The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following illustrations: Illustration 'A': The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows: a) Annual income before the accident Rs. 36,000/- b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) Rs. 5400/- c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age 17 d) Loss of future earnings: (5400x17) Rs. 91,800/- Illustration 'B': The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/-per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows: a) Annual income before the accident Rs. 36,000/- b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) Rs. 27,00/- c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age 17 d) Loss of future earnings: (27,000x17) Rs. 4,59,000/- Illustration 'C': The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows: a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an engineer Rs. 60,000/- b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) Rs. 42,000/- c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) 18 d) Loss of future earnings: (42,000x18) Rs. The calculation of compensation will be as follows: a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an engineer Rs. 60,000/- b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) Rs. 42,000/- c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) 18 d) Loss of future earnings: (42,000x18) Rs. 7,56,000/- Note: The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra). 18. The issue of compensation in respect to disability has also been considered by this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 31.03.2017 and it has been observed in para 70 as under: "70. "Disability" refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. "Permanent disability" refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for remainder life of injured. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. "Partial permanent disability" refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. "Total permanent disability" refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident." 19. A three Judge Bench considered the question of "just compensation" in a case of permanent disability in Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2014(3) SCC 210 . Court observed that besides determination of damages under the head "loss of income" and "medical expenses", Tribunal must also award compensation under the head "future treatment" and "pain and sufferings" and where there is requirement of an attendant, cost of attendant should also be included for award of compensation. 20. In Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2014(2) SCC 735 , claimant sustained injuries in a road accident on 14.02.2008 to lower end of right femur and his right leg was amputed. Medical certificate, verified 24% disability to upper limb and 85% to lower limb. 20. In Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2014(2) SCC 735 , claimant sustained injuries in a road accident on 14.02.2008 to lower end of right femur and his right leg was amputed. Medical certificate, verified 24% disability to upper limb and 85% to lower limb. Claimant therein was a Vegetable Vendor. Tribunal allowed compensation treating disability of whole body at 30%, which was enhanced by High Court to 65%. Supreme Court said that a Vegetable Vendor might not require mobility to the extent that he sells vegetables at one place but the occupation of vegetable vending is not confined to selling vegetables from a particular location. It rather involves procuring vegetables from whole-sale market or farmers and then selling it off in retail market. This often involves selling vegetables in cart which requires 100% mobility. Court said that even if it is presumed that vegetable vending by claimant involved selling vegetables from one place, claimant would require assistance with his mobility in bringing vegetables to market place which otherwise would be extremely difficult for him with an amputated leg. Court further observed that in manual labour cases, loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood. In that case Court upheld disability of 85% since claimant was capable to earn his livelihood once he is brought in market place. 21. In Rajan Vs. Soly Sebastian and another, 2015(10) SCC 506 claimant was a driver and in a road accident sustained injury causing blurred vision. Doctor certified body disability to the extent of 60%. High Court treated disability to the extent of 100% since it was not possible for claimant to earn his livelihood by working as driver and there was a total permanent disablement to the extent of 100% in respect of earning capacity. Supreme Court also upheld permanent disability with regard to earning capacity as 100%. 22. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, 2014(5) SCC 330 claimant sustained injuries resulting in amputation of right leg above knee. As per Entry 18 in Part II of Schedule I of Act, 1923, loss of earning capacity was assessed as 70% and Tribunal determined compensation accordingly. Claimant was an Embroider, a skilled workman. Court upheld 70% disability and loss of earning capacity. Ashok Kumar and another, 2014(5) SCC 330 claimant sustained injuries resulting in amputation of right leg above knee. As per Entry 18 in Part II of Schedule I of Act, 1923, loss of earning capacity was assessed as 70% and Tribunal determined compensation accordingly. Claimant was an Embroider, a skilled workman. Court upheld 70% disability and loss of earning capacity. One more aspect was added that claimant may need assistance in order to travel and move around, regular check-ups and will most likely use a crutch to walk, all of which will incur expenses. It is also a factor which is bound to cause loss of marriage prospects, which is a major loss, keeping in mind the young age of claimant. Thus under the head of loss of future prospect, Court awarded compensation separately to Rs. 75,000/-. It was also observed that amputation, i.e., loss of a limb causes a profusion of distress and claimant has to deal with same for rest of his life. He might have to deal with discrimination and stigma in society due to the fact that he is an amputee. Claimant, therefore, was also allowed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. The injury has permanently disabled claimant, reducing his enjoyment of life and full pursuit of all activities he engaged in prior to accident. 23. In nutshell, the law is that Tribunal has to award compensation which is just. That is the statutory obligation on Tribunal and once we find that compensation awarded by Tribunal satisfy the requisite factors and issues, and, broadly, amount of compensation awarded is just, Appellant Court would not be justified in still interfering with the award of Tribunal since a decree of reversal is not to be passed on mere asking. 24. In view of above discussion, it cannot be said that compensation awarded by Tribunal towards disability is unjust, excessive or in contravention of principles required to be taken into consideration for determination of just compensation in such a case. 25. Now coming to another part, we find that Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 7 per cent though in the last few years, Courts have consistently awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent. 26. The question of rate of interest to be awarded is no more res integra. 25. Now coming to another part, we find that Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 7 per cent though in the last few years, Courts have consistently awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent. 26. The question of rate of interest to be awarded is no more res integra. In Neeta Vs The Divisional Manager, MSRTC (2015) 3 SCC 590 where accident took place on 22.03.2011, Court allowed 9% rate of interest and held that interest awarded by Tribunal at 8% was erroneous. Para-11 of the judgment reads as under:- "The appellants are also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals at the rate of 9% per annum 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 % per annum on the compensation awarded by them to the Appellants without following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Ors. (2011) 14SCC 481. Accordingly, we award the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation determined in these appeals from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment." 27. In Kanhsingh Vs. Tukaram, 2015 (1) SCALE 366 where accident had taken place on 02.07.2006 but tribunal awarded no interest, Court held that this is erroneous and 9 % interest should have been allowed in view of the principles laid down in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy 2011(14) SCC 481 . 28. In Kalpanaraj and Others Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2015) 2 SCC where accident took place on or before 1994, High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum which was challenged that it is on higher side. Court upheld said rate of interest. 29. In Shashikala and Others Vs Gangalakshmamma and Another (2015) 9 SCC 150 , where accident had taken place on 14.12.2006, Court allowed 9% rate of interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 30. In Asha Verman and Ors Vs Maharaj Singh & Ors, 2015 (4) SCALE 329 , High Court awarded interest at the rate of 8%. Accident took place on 27.11.2016. 30. In Asha Verman and Ors Vs Maharaj Singh & Ors, 2015 (4) SCALE 329 , High Court awarded interest at the rate of 8%. Accident took place on 27.11.2016. It was held that 8% interest is on lower side and it should be 9%. 31. In Surit Gupta Vs United India Insurance Company (2015) 11 SCC 457 , accident took place in July, 1990. Punjab and Haryana High Court had awarded interest at the rate of 6%. Court held that it is on lower side and it should be 9%. 32. In Chanderi Devi and another Vs Jaspal Singh and others (2015) 11 SCC 703 , date of accident is September 2006 and the incumbent died on 04.10.2006. Court awarded 9% interest. 33. In Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi Vs Kasam Daud Kumbhar and Others (2015) 4 SCC 237 , incident was of 21.09.1990. Tribunal awarded 15 % interest which was reduced to 12% by Gujarat High Court. Court held that it is on higher side and awarded 9% interest following its decisions in Amresh Kumari Vs Niranjan Lal Jagdish Parshad Jain 2010 ACJ 551 (SC) and Mohinder Kaur Vs Hira Nand Sindhi (2007) ACJ 2123 (SC). 34. In the present case, Tribunal has also not awarded any amount of compensation towards future prospects etc. and thus taking a wholesome view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that compensation awarded by Tribunal in the case in hand is not such which may justify a decree of reversal by this Court. It is well established that decree of reversal cannot be passed unless Court finds justification to reverse findings of Court below and not on mere asking. 35. In S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. Vs. Rajabu F.Buhari (Mrs) (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1607 , the Court in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment has upheld the contention that though the appellate court is within its right to take a different view on the question of fact, but that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by trial court in arriving at the findings in question. The Appellate Court before reversing a finding of fact has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by Trial Court. The Apex Court relied and followed earlier decision of Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. The Appellate Court before reversing a finding of fact has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by Trial Court. The Apex Court relied and followed earlier decision of Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath, 1906 10 CWN 630 and in para 15 of the judgment said: "There is no need to pursue the legal principle, as we have no doubt in our mind that before reversing a finding of fact, the appellate court has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by the trial court. This view of ours finds support from what was stated by the Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath, (1906) 10 Cal.W.N. 630, wherein, while regarding the appellate judgment of the High Court of judicature at Fort William as "careful and able", it was stated that it did not "come to close quarters with the judgment which it reviews, and indeed never discusses or even alludes to the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge." 36. Following the above decision Hon'ble B.L. Yadav, J in Smt. Sona Devi Vs. Nagina Singh and Ors. AIR 1997 Pat 67 observed that whenever judgment of Appellate Court is a judgment of reversal, it is the primary duty of Appellate Court while reversing the findings of Trial Court to consider the reasons given by Trial Court and those reasons must also be reversed. Unless that is done, judgment of lower Appellate Court cannot be held to be consistent with the requirement of Order XLI, Rule 31, which is a mandatory provision. 37. The above view has also been followed recently in Jaideo Yadav Vs. Raghunath Yadav & Anr., 2009(3) PLJR 529 wherein the Court said that Trial Court recorded its findings but lower Appellate Court had not reversed the said findings and rather on the basis of some findings of its own, title appeal was allowed by lower Appellate Court without appreciating findings of Trial Court on the concerned issue. The court then said : "The law is well settled in this regard that where the judgment of the lower appellate court is a judgment of reversal it is primary duly of the appellate court to consider the reasons given by the trial court and those reasons must also be reversed." 38. This court has also followed the same view in Doodhnath and another Vs. Deonandan AIR 2006 All 3 . 39. This court has also followed the same view in Doodhnath and another Vs. Deonandan AIR 2006 All 3 . 39. In view of discussion made hereinabove, we find no merits in the appeal. Dismissed. ——————