JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This appeal, at the behest of the injured-claimant challenges the judgment and award dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 1151 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 7%. 3. We do not burden the judgment with unnecessary facts except the facts needed for computing the compensation as all other issues have attained finality as neither Insurance Company nor the owner has filed any cross-objection and/or appeal. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation as the Tribunal very strangely did not grant any amount for future loss of income, actual loss of income though the claimant who was 22 years of age on 29.5.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, so as to challenge the order of the Tribunal has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC 330 ; (ii) Syed. Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 ; (iii) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and another, (2014) 11 SCC 178 ; and (iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011. (v) Hari Babu Vs. Amrit Lal and others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.). 5. As narrated above, the accident is not in dispute. The negligence of the driver is also not in dispute. The injured sustained 53% injuries on his different parts of body is proved by evidence of Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr. R.P. Mishra, who has given the disability certificate as the treating doctor did not give any disability certificate. The injured had to go to a private doctor. The petitioner was hospitalized from 29.5.2014 to 12.6.2014. It is an admitted position from prescription and the injury certificates of the hospital that he was treated by Dr. Atul Rastogi and Dr. Nitin Gupta at Jaswant Rai Speciality Hospital. He was an indoor patient from 29.5.2014 to 12.6.2014. Several time he was subjected to different kind of C.T. Scans. He was having crushed injuries on his left hand. It is an admitted position from prescription and the injury certificates of the hospital that he was treated by Dr. Atul Rastogi and Dr. Nitin Gupta at Jaswant Rai Speciality Hospital. He was an indoor patient from 29.5.2014 to 12.6.2014. Several time he was subjected to different kind of C.T. Scans. He was having crushed injuries on his left hand. He had injuries on the lower limb also. The Tribunal very strangely granted medical expenses but as the certificate was given by private Doctor, refuse to grant any amount for loss of income despite the fact that there was X-ray report which shows fixation device. There was healed fracture of superior ramus of right pubis and inferior rami of both pubis. X-ray report of right leg shows that there are old healed fracture (with callus formation) of lower 1/3rd of shaft of right tibia is seen, fixation of device was seen and there are old healed fracture with callus formation of upper 1/3rd of shaft of right fibula is seen. X-ray report of left thigh shows there are old healed fracture (with callus formation) of lower 1/3rd of shaft of left femur is seen and fixation is seen in situ. 6. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of compensation payable has come to the conclusion that the injuries are non Scheduled injuries. The Tribunal considered that the disability given by the doctor was not acceptable as he was not the treating doctor and only for taking certificate of disability he had approached Dr. R.P. Mishra and he brushed aside the evidence of Dr. R.P. Mishra and came to the conclusion that the injured cannot be said to have contracted any permanent partial disablement and, therefore, he was not entitled for any amount as the certificates did inspire confidence. In our view, this finding is against the contours of beneficial piece of legislation. Dr. R.P. Mishra had also referred the patient to get his X-ray done. In his medical certificate, he has considered all this facts and, therefore the judgment of Apex Court in Anthony Alias Anthony Swamy v. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C., 2020 (0) AIJEC-SC 66306 and Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2020 (0) AIJELSC 66810 will apply in full force as the certificate speaks about history, examination, latest x-rays. The x-ray dated 29.4.2014 was also evaluated by him. Ltd., 2020 (0) AIJELSC 66810 will apply in full force as the certificate speaks about history, examination, latest x-rays. The x-ray dated 29.4.2014 was also evaluated by him. From the X-rays, nailing was done in left femur and right fibia bone screw fixation was done medial malleolus. There was fracture in the pelvic region and his left hand flap surgery by a plastic surgeon. could this be brushed aside on the basis that the doctor had not treated him. Dr. R.P. Mishra, holds the degree of Orthopaedic Surgeon and was retired medical superintendent. He has even withstood the cross examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company. Even in the discharge summary of the claimant, all these facts are mentioned and, therefore, the finding that it cannot be conclusively said and held that he had any kind of disability is absurd. All the witnesses have proved the injuries on the appellant namely P.W.1 injured himself, P.W.2 Doctor, P.W.3, the clerk of the hospital where the appellant was treated, P.W.4 Arun Goel, owner of Medical Store. The Insurance Company has not produced any witness to show that the medical certificate could not be read into evidence. Decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pankaj, 2014 (2) TAC 240 All, states that it would not be proper to hold that disability certificate cannot be given by a qualified doctor who examined injured/claimant subsequently to assess extent of his permanent disability, the Tribunal returned correct finding on all issues involved in the case. 7. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal is against the contours of grant of compensation for injuries. The judgment of the Apex Court in Shivdhar Kumar Vashiya v. Ranjeet Singh and others, 2022 (0) Supreme (SC) 40 will enure for the benefit of the appellant. Hence the judgment would have to re-evaluated for grant of compensation. 8. The record goes show that the injured was serving with Impression Service Pvt. Ltd. NOIDA and where he was getting salary Rs.18,200/-per month and due to these injuries he lost his job. In that view of matter the inured being 22 years of age at the time of accident and in view of the decision in Raj Kumar Vs. 8. The record goes show that the injured was serving with Impression Service Pvt. Ltd. NOIDA and where he was getting salary Rs.18,200/-per month and due to these injuries he lost his job. In that view of matter the inured being 22 years of age at the time of accident and in view of the decision in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , wherein it has been held that if the injury is not specified in Schedule on such percentage of compensation would be payable in case of permanent total disablement proportionate to loss of earning capacity. In our case we can consider his functional disability to be 25%. The Tribunal has not considered any of the decision cited before it and has brushed aside all the authoritative pronouncement. The claimant was earning Rs.18,200/-to which being 22 years of age, 40 will have to be added towards future loss of income and as we hold that his functional disability would be 25%, to which he would be entitled to Rs.50,000/-towards pain, shock and suffering. Looking to the age of the deceased, the multiplier applicable would be 18. The Tribunal has given a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/-as per Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 though the petition was under Section 166 of the Act. We grant the said amount as there were multiple surgeries and multiple foreign instruments were inserted in the body of the young man. To this we grant Rs.2,30,500/-granted by the Tribunal for medical expenses. We grant a sum of Rs. 50,000/-for other non pecuniary damages. 9. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellant is computed herein below: i. Income Rs.18,200/- ii. Percentage towards future prospects 40% namely Rs.7280/- iii. Total income Rs. 18,200 + 7280 = Rs.25480- iv. Loss of earning capacity 25% namely Rs.6,370- v. Annual loss Rs.6,370 x 12= Rs.76,440/- vi. Multiplier applicable 18 vii. Total loss Rs.76,440 x 18 = Rs.13,75,920/- viii. Medical expenses Rs.2,30,500/- ix. Amount under pain, shock and suffering Rs.50,000/- x. Amount under all other non-pecuniary heads 50,000 xi. Total compensation 17,06,420/- 10. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Medical expenses Rs.2,30,500/- ix. Amount under pain, shock and suffering Rs.50,000/- x. Amount under all other non-pecuniary heads 50,000 xi. Total compensation 17,06,420/- 10. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under : "13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court." 11. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 13. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 14. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 14. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 , total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/-in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income- Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) while disbursing the amount. 15. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Tribunals in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case.