JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. Both these appeals arise out a common judgment dated 12th January, 2012 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 195 of 1991. 2. In First Appeal No. 306 of 2001, this Court by judgment dated 21st June, 2011, set aside the earlier judgment and award and remanded the matter back for a fresh trial. 3. After remanding the matter back by this Court, the petitioner-claimant examined PW - 2-Dr. Surajkumar Kuril and PW 3 - Dr. Chandu Thorat to prove the Disability Certificate. 4. The case of the claimant - Dr. Narayansingh Hazari, in short, is that he is a qualified surgeon having qualification of M.B.B.S., D.L.O [London] and F.R.C.S. He runs a private hospital by name "Hazari Nursing Home" at Aurangabad since 1978. 5. On the day of accident, i.e., in the night between 19th and 20th June, 1991, the claimant was travelling by a private Luxury Bus bearing Registration No. MH-20-A-2295 from Aurangabad to Nagpur. He was sitting on Seat No.7 at conductor side. At about 4.00 a.m., when the Luxury Bus was on National Highway No. 6, 45 kms., away from Amravati, the said bus gave dash to the truck bearing registration No. MTV-2860, which was parked by the side of the road. Due to heavy dash, the front side of the bus was damaged. The claimant sustained severe injuries to his left leg. His left leg was fractured. As per the contention of the claimant, the driver of the Luxury Bus was rash and negligent while driving the said bus. The stationary truck bearing Registration No. MTV-2860 was parked by the side of the road. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Luxury Bus, the accident took place. The claimant was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Kulkarni at Amravati. Subsequently, he was shifted to Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai, on 21st June, 1991. He was an indoor patient in Jaslok Hospital till 26th July, 1991. He was operated for more than one occasion. Thereafter, he was advised bed rest for three months. He was required to take further treatment till February, 1992. Because of the accident, the claimant sustained thirty per cent permanent disability. His monthly average income was Rs. 55,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. Because of the disability, he could not perform surgeries and other functions as before the accident. Thereafter, he was advised bed rest for three months. He was required to take further treatment till February, 1992. Because of the accident, the claimant sustained thirty per cent permanent disability. His monthly average income was Rs. 55,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. Because of the disability, he could not perform surgeries and other functions as before the accident. That has resulted in financial losses. The claimant prayed for grant of compensation of Rs.43,00,000-00. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed the judgment on 17th January, 2003 and granted compensation of Rs. 34,00,000/-, directing the owner and Insurance Company of the Luxury Bus to pay the same along with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum excluding the period from 18.04.1994 to 06.09.2001. The said judgment was challenged in First Appeal No. 306 of 2001 before this Court. This Court came to the conclusion that the Disability Certificate was not proved by examining the concerned doctor and, therefore, the matter was remanded back. 6. After the remand, the Disability Certificate came to be proved by examining Pws 2 and 3, i.e., Dr. Surajkumar Kuril and Dr. Chandu Thorat respectively. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, recorded its finding that the petitioner-claimant has sustained thirty per cent permanent disability and granted compensation of Rs.19,85,000/- without any interest. First Appeal No. 613 of 2012 is filed by the claimant - Dr. Narayansingh for enhancement of compensation and for grant of interest from the date of petition till the realization of whole amount. 7. The Oriental Insurance Company filed First Appeal No. 926 of 2017 praying to quash and set aside the impugned judgment. 8. Heard learned Adv. Shri D.N. Kukday for the Oriental Insurance Company. He has submitted that the doctor, who issued the Certificate, was not examined and, therefore, the Disability Certificate [Exh.50] is not proved. Learned Adv. has submitted that the claimant is fully recovered and there is no loss of income. Hence, there is no thirty per cent disability. He, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment. Learned Adv., has submitted that excessive compensation is granted by the Tribunal. Learned Adv. has submitted that the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the truck were impleaded as respondents in the petition. There was composite negligence. Hence, there is no thirty per cent disability. He, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment. Learned Adv., has submitted that excessive compensation is granted by the Tribunal. Learned Adv. has submitted that the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the truck were impleaded as respondents in the petition. There was composite negligence. Hence, contributory negligence is to be held and they are also liable to pay fifty per cent amount of compensation. The learned Adv. has pointed out the following decisions:- [a] New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kirti Lakhotia & others, (2013) 2 ACC 622 (DB) (Cal.) , . [b] Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs. Udhvir Singh & another, (2008) 6 MhLJ 21, [c] Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another, (2010) 4 ACC 815(SC), and [d] Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others, (2015) 4 MadLJ 364. 9. There is no dispute about the accident. There is also no dispute that the claimant Dr. Hazari suffered severe injuries. His left leg was fractured. It is the contention of the Oriental Insurance Company that the claimant is fully recovered and, therefore, he cannot claim the compensation. Learned Adv. Shri Kukday has pointed out the cross-examination of the claimant and submitted that he is fully recovered. The claimant has stated in para 7 of the cross-examination that he is fully recovered in the year 1994. This particular stray admission cannot be taken into consideration because his further cross-examination in para 7 itself shows that still he is not fully recovered. He cannot walk a long distance. He is required to use a stick. He gets swelling on the foot if he stands for a long time and feels discomfort. He cannot jump, run and cannot walk fast. He feels difficulty in climbing the staircase. He made changes in his private block also as he cannot squat. He can drive a four-wheeler, but for a short distance. He has engaged a driver. His evidence shows that his income has decreased from the year 1992. He has produced Income Tax Returns which are rightly considered by the Tribunal and it came to the conclusion that as per the Disability Certificate [Exh.50], the claimant has sustained thirty per cent disability and, therefore, he is entitled for the compensation. There is nothing wrong in the finding of the Tribunal. 10. He has produced Income Tax Returns which are rightly considered by the Tribunal and it came to the conclusion that as per the Disability Certificate [Exh.50], the claimant has sustained thirty per cent disability and, therefore, he is entitled for the compensation. There is nothing wrong in the finding of the Tribunal. 10. Learned Adv., has submitted that the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the truck are made party and, therefore, they are liable for composite negligence. It is pertinent to note that the claimant has specifically stated in his evidence that the driver of the Luxury bus was driving the vehicle in an excessive speed, rashly and negligently, and dashed the stationary truck which was standing by the side of the road. Learned Adv. has relied on the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kirti Lakhotia & others [cited supra], in which the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has held that the "truck was parked on the side of road. The truck was stationary and if a van driver was driving his van at a speed of 34-40 kmph, he could have avoided the accident. Several vehicles had crossed the truck and there was no accident. The High Court, therefore, held that owner and Insurance Company of the van are also liable for composite negligence and, therefore, liability in the ratio of 25:75 for truck driver and van driver was assessed." Learned Adv. Shri Kukday also pressed into service the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others [supra], which also does not apply to the case in hand. In the present case, there is no evidence to show any negligence on the part of the truck driver. The truck driver was examined before the Tribunal. He has stated in his evidence that the truck was parked by the side of the road. The lamps/parking lights were on. This particular evidence cannot be discarded. Moreover, the Insurance Company of the truck examined one Ashok Gandhi. He was working with New India Assurance Company. He has stated that during the enquiry it was disclosed to him that the driver of the truck was not negligent. The truck was parked by the side of the road. The luxury bus gave dash to the standing truck. Moreover, the Insurance Company of the truck examined one Ashok Gandhi. He was working with New India Assurance Company. He has stated that during the enquiry it was disclosed to him that the driver of the truck was not negligent. The truck was parked by the side of the road. The luxury bus gave dash to the standing truck. The driver and owner of the offending luxury bus were proceeded ex parte. The appellant - Oriental Insurance Company was at liberty to examine the driver of the luxury bus. But, there is no evidence of driver of luxury bus. The evidence of driver of the truck shows that he was not negligent. The evidence of claimant-petitioner shows that the driver of luxury bus was driving his vehicle in an excessive speed, rashly and negligently and, therefore, the accident took place. The cited decision is on a different footing. Therefore, it is not applicable to the case in hand. In the cited decision, the truck was parked by the side of the road and several vehicles had crossed the truck. It was held that the driver of the van could have avoided the accident. The High Court, therefore, held that whole liability cannot be fastened on the parked truck and, therefore, the owner and Insurance Company of the van were equally held liable to pay compensation. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the cited decision. 11. Learned Adv. Shri Kukday has submitted that the Disability Certificate [Exh.50] is not proved. In support of his submission, he pointed out the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the cited decision. 11. Learned Adv. Shri Kukday has submitted that the Disability Certificate [Exh.50] is not proved. In support of his submission, he pointed out the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another [cited supra], in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "(iii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 168 - Assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability - Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity - Permanent disability refers to residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of body, which existed at the end of period of treatment and recuperation - Temporary disability refers to incapacity or loss of use of some part of body which would cease to exist at the end of treatment and recuperation - Partial permanent disability would refer to such disability due to which injured could perform some of the activities - Total permanent disability refers to total disfunctioning of such part of body - It may further refer to all body or to a particular limb - Extent of disability of a limb or part of body is expressed in terms of percentage of total functioning - Tribunal has to decide all these questions." 12. The facts in the cited decision in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another [supra] are very much different. In the present case, the claimant has examined Dr. Surajkumar Kuril and Dr. Chandu Thorat. Learned Adv. Shri Kukday has submitted that the doctor who issued the certificate is not examined and, therefore, Exh.50 is not a reliable document. The evidence of claimant Dr. Hazari is well supported by the Disability Certificate [Exh.50]. Dr. Surajkumar cannot be said to be the proper witness to prove the Disability Certificate, he has stated on the basis of papers before the Court. In his evidence, he has stated that all the Members of the Medical Board are not presently in service. Their whereabouts are not known. As per the Certificate of the Board, the petitioner-claimant has sustained thirty per cent disability. 13. The claimant has examined Dr. Chandu Thorat. He has stated in his evidence that on 25th July, 2002, the then Chairman of the Medical Board of the Govt. Their whereabouts are not known. As per the Certificate of the Board, the petitioner-claimant has sustained thirty per cent disability. 13. The claimant has examined Dr. Chandu Thorat. He has stated in his evidence that on 25th July, 2002, the then Chairman of the Medical Board of the Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad, requested him to examine the patient by name Dr. Narayansingh Hazari for the purpose of assessment of disability. In view of that letter, he examined Dr. Narayansingh Hazari on 25th July, 2002. On examination, he found that it was an old case of compound fracture of tibia and fibula left side. There was a fracture of femur upper 1/3rd left. In his opinion, the total percentage of permanent disability was thirty per cent as per macbride scale. Radiological examination of the patient was conducted before assessment. On the basis of his examination, he sent his opinion to the Medical Board. There was no Orthopaedic Surgeon as a Member of the Board. Therefore, his opinion was sought as an expert by the Board. Relying on his opinion, the Medical Board issued the Certificate of Permanent Disability. 14. Though the Board Members, who signed the Disability Certificate, are not examined, the evidence of Dr. Chandu Thorat clearly shows that on the basis of his opinion, the Medical Board issued the Disability Certificate [Exh.50]. He himself personally examined the patient and sent his opinion to the Medical Board. Therefore, it is clear that the Disability Certificate [Exh.50] is rightly proved by the claimant. As per the opinion of Dr. Chandu Thorat and Disability Certificate [Exh.50], it is clear that the claimant has sustained thirty per cent permanent disability. The cited decision by the side of the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company is not helpful. 15. Learned counsel Shri Kukday has pointed out the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & another [supra], and submitted that the Disability Certificate of thirty per cent filed by the claimant is not admissible unless author of the Certificate is examined by the claimant. As stated above, Dr. Chandu Thorat has proved the Disability Certificate [Exh.50]. Hence, the cited decision is not applicable to the case in hand. 16. The claimant has proved that he has sustained thirty per cent permanent disability. As stated above, Dr. Chandu Thorat has proved the Disability Certificate [Exh.50]. Hence, the cited decision is not applicable to the case in hand. 16. The claimant has proved that he has sustained thirty per cent permanent disability. It is also proved by producing the Income Tax Returns from the years 1990-91 to 1993-94 that his income is reduced. Learned Tribunal has held that the monthly income of the claimant was Rs. 27,000/-. Looking to the thirty per cent permanent disability, the total loss of income of the claimant is Rs. 8100/- per month x 12 which comes to Rs. 97,200/- and the Tribunal granted compensation including the medical expenses etc. totalling Rs. 19,85,000/-. Learned Tribunal granted compensation for medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges, loss of income during the period of medical treatment, future loss of income, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities etc. Learned Tribunal has rightly granted compensation of Rs. 19,85,000/-, but wrongly did not grant interest to the claimant. 17. Learned counsel for the claimant has pointed out the decision of Apex Court in the case of Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India & another, (2003) 3 SCC 148 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "award of interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case - Relevant factors for determining the said question, restated - Where appellant's deceased husband, aged 40 years, met with a fatal accident in the year 1990 while he was going on his scooter, held on facts, the amount of interest should be awarded at the rate of nine per cent per annum." "The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration." 18. The learned Tribunal has not given any reason for not granting the interest to the claimant. As a general rule, interest is to be granted from the date of petition. The reason is that the Insurance Company has withheld the amount. The learned Tribunal has not given any reason for not granting the interest to the claimant. As a general rule, interest is to be granted from the date of petition. The reason is that the Insurance Company has withheld the amount. As per the requirement, the Insurance Company ought to have paid the compensation on or before filing the claim petition. The Insurance Company has enjoyed the amount of compensation and, therefore, it is liable to pay compensation with interest. The claimant in the present case is a renowned Orthopaedic Surgeon. He was an indoor patient and he was operated from time to time. He could not perform his duty for about eight months. 19. The learned Adv. Shri Kukday has submitted that the Tribunal has directed the respondent nos. 1 and 3 to jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 19,85,000-00; but the owner of the luxury bus is not directed. Without any joint and several liability on the Insurance Company with whom the truck was insured, the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible. In view of the submissions and on perusal of the operative part of the judgment, the same is modified. Hence, First Appeal Nos. 613 of 2012 and 926 of 2017 are partly allowed. The impugned judgment is maintained. However, it is modified as under:- [a] The Claim Petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs. [b] The respondent nos. 2 and 3 [owner of luxury bus and Oriental Insurance Company respectively] shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 19,85,000-00 [rupees nineteen lakhs eighty-five thousand only] to the claimant along with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., from 17th December, 1991 till realization of whole amount. [c] During the pendency of First Appeal No. 360 of 2003, amount of Rs.20,00,000-00 [rupees twenty lakhs only] was withdrawn by the claimant. That amount be adjusted from the amount granted above.