JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. Heard Sri Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Anita Srivastava and Sri Brajesh Kumar for the respondents. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been preferred against the Judgement and award dated 18.3.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Buland Shahar in M.A.C. No. 201 of 2002 (Sunil Kumar @ Sonu v. Arjun Sharma and others, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,425 as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the date of decision till realisation of the awarded amount. 3. As per claim petition, on 12.5.2002, claimant alongwith his father Nathi Singh was going to Gulwathi riding on his scooter having Registration No. U.P. 13-F 9929. Scooter was being driven by his father and he was pillion rider. When they reached on Gulwathi-Bulandshahar thoroughfare before Senkara Jindal Factory at about 7.00 a.m., a Maruti van having Registration No. D.L. ACC 2227, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came from opposite side and dashed scooter on account of which claimant and his father sustained grievous injuries. Claimant was rushed to District Hospital Bulandshahar, after extending primary treatment to him, he was referred to Lokpriya Hospital, Meerut. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had sustained serious injuries in the said accident and had claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest but the Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 12,425/- with interest at the rate of 6%. It is further submitted that injured was a student of class IX at the time of accident. He used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per mensem by tutoring the children of class 1 to 5. It is further stated that the Tribunal has miserably failed in appreciating this facts and has requested this Court to grant complete compensation. 5. As against this, Sri S.P. Lal, learned counsel for the respondent, has taken this Court to the impugned judgment and contended that the alleged medical bills which were paid towards his medical treatment has neither been substantiated by affidavit nor on perusal of many of bills, it is not clear as to under which doctor's prescription, the medicines etc. have been purchased. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has granted the amount very liberally. 6. I have perused the judgment. have been purchased. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has granted the amount very liberally. 6. I have perused the judgment. Injured lost his father in the same accident regarding which Appeal being First Appeal From Order No. 1529 of 2006 was decided by this Court on 12.7.2019. Neither before this Court nor before the Tribunal, any certificate showing his disability was produced. The boy was hospitalized from 12.5.2002 to 30.5.2002. There are medical prescriptions. Claimant (P.W. 1) has deposed on oath that he was first kept in Government Hospital at Bulandshahar and thereafter at Lokpriya Hospital at Meerut. Though it was stated that an expenditure of Rs. 3,00,000/- incurred towards his treatment but as the receipts produced were not given by the Hospital, the Tribunal did not consider grant of amount as there were some overwriting thereon. It is stated that he had got 50% marks in 12th Standard. The Tribunal held that there was no change in his mental condition and no medical certificate was produced showing his disability. The Tribunal granted Rs. 12,425/-, which is absolutely arbitrary and capricious. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the bills which have been produced and for which evidence is led are admissible evidence. The same is ordered to be paid as they were actual expenses incurred by the injured as he was young boy and was hospitalized for 18 days. The claimant having fracture was at least entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of no fault liability. The pathological lab and the documents go to show that the bills which are produced are of Rs. 28,252/- and other Rs. 20,000. Having not considered this is bad in law. There is further bill of Rs. 16,335/- for surgery charges of neuro surgeon, Orthopaedic, Anaesthesia and this shows that he was operated, hence, for suffering of pain and other heads is entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000 for the medical expenses. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 28252 +20,000+ 6,335+ 70000= Rs. 1,24,587/-. 8. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. 9. 28252 +20,000+ 6,335+ 70000= Rs. 1,24,587/-. 8. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 9% in view decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 242/243 of 2020 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and others) decided on 13 January, 2020 which is the latest in point of time. 9. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the judgment of the Tribunal and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.