JUDGEMENT : Heard Mr. V.K. Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the opp. Party/respondent. 2. By filing this application under Order 47 Rule 1, read with Section 114 & 151 of the CPC, the petitioner sought for review and/or modification of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2018, passed in MAC Appeal No.28/2016. 3. On 09.04.1999, the claimant/petitioner met with an accident while he was travelling in a vehicle bearing Regn. No.AS-10/D-2733 (Bus) from Guwahati to Nagaon and collided head on with a truck bearing Regn. No.MN-01/4829, wherein he sustained grievous injuries on his person. 4. The claimant/petitioner preferred a claim petition before the Member, MACT, Kamrup vide MAC Case No.951/99 and after conclusion of trial, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,77,000/-in total under three heads: (1) Rs.49,000/-as Medical expenses, (2) Rs.30,000/-for pain and suffering and (3) Rs.1,98,000/-for loss of earning. In addition to the above, the learned Tribunal ordered payment of rate of interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 17.11.1999 till the date of payment. 5. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimant/petitioner preferred an appeal vide MAC Appeal No.28/2016, mainly on two counts i.e. to apply the multiplier 15 instead of multiplier 11 taken by the learned Tribunal and to increase the rate of interest @12% per annum, instead of @6% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal. 6. This Court, after hearing both sides and perusal of the materials available, the appeal was partly allowed by applying the multiplier 14, instead of 11 as taken by the Tribunal. Moreover Rs.50,000/-was awarded for pain and sufferings and Rs.50,000/-was granted under the heading ‘miscellaneous expenses’, incurred by the claimant. Thus the awarded amount was increased to Rs.4,01,000/-from the amount of Rs.2,77,000/-, awarded by the learned Tribunal. However the amount of medical expenses was kept intact and rate of interest directed to pay is @6% per annum from the date of award i.e. 02.07.2011 and the awarded amount was directed to deposit in the learned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of order. 7. However the amount of medical expenses was kept intact and rate of interest directed to pay is @6% per annum from the date of award i.e. 02.07.2011 and the awarded amount was directed to deposit in the learned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of order. 7. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court on 18.09.2018, the present Review Application is preferred on the grounds: (1) The awarding of interest w.e.f. 02.07.2011, instead of the date of filing of the claim petition is a mistake apparent on the face of the record in as much as the learned Tribunal awarded interest from the date of filing and in view of non-challenge of the award of interest from the date of filing the claim petition by the Insurance Company, the same is required to be reviewed. (2) Non-consideration of enhancement of the rate of interest from 6% to higher rate of interest, as claimed by the petitioner, appears as usually granted, is a mistake apparent on record and as such, the judgment and order dated 18.09.2018, requires to be reviewed. 8. Heard the submission of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. 9. Primarily the review of the judgment is sought for on the ground that this Court, while passing the judgment, has not awarded the amount from the date of filing of the petition, whereas the learned Tribunal awarded the same from the date of filing of the petition. On the next, this Court has not awarded the interest at the higher rate than that of @6% per annum, as sought for by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-consideration of the above, is an error apparent on record and sought for review of the judgment passed by this Court. 10. So far as regards the date of award as well as the interest, this Court took note of all the aspects that were brought to the notice at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the respondent and on the basis of which this Court passed the aforesaid order. For a better appreciation, para 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment is quoted below: “10. For a better appreciation, para 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment is quoted below: “10. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has contended that the claimant himself failed to adduce evidence before the Tribunal for a long 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 (Exhibit53) 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 & Ors. –vs-Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 .” 11. It is to be noted that the aforesaid aspects/grievances raised by the petitioner was taken into consideration while passing the order as because the petitioner, as claimant did not produce evidence for a long period from 1999 to 2008. –vs-Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 .” 11. It is to be noted that the aforesaid aspects/grievances raised by the petitioner was taken into consideration while passing the order as because the petitioner, as claimant did not produce evidence for a long period from 1999 to 2008. This Court finding no any justification for awarding the compensation from the date of filing petition and as such compensation was directed to be given from the date of filing of the petition and as such compensation was directed to be given from the date of order. It is needless to say that the appeal is a continuation of the trial and the Appellate Court can appreciate and decide the matter irrespective of submission of both the parties. 12. In that view of the matter, even though no appeal was preferred by the respondent side challenging award for granting the same from the date of filing the claim petition but that does not indicate that the Appellate Court cannot appreciate the matter in the light of matters on record. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging above points, is not sustainable. 13. So far as regards the awarding of interest @6% per annum, it is found that at the time of preferring the appeal, the petitioner herein sought for enhancement interest due to long pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, but the same aspect was not considered while disposing the appeal. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that this aspect can be reviewed. The petitioner herein has been awarded the compensation by the learned Tribunal from the date of claim petition but this Court is granted the same from the date of award by the learned trial court. It cannot be denied that the interest might have increased from the date of filing of the petition in the year 1999 and till the date of award due to prevailing market situation. Considering all entirety, interest rate is enhanced to 9% per annum from 6% on the awarded amount from the date of order of the learned Tribunal. Review petition partly allowed with the above modification.