JUDGMENT : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the MV Act of 1988) has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 12/2020. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vikramjeet Devnath and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent no. 1 (R-1). None appears for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 3. In the present case, the R-1 as claimant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act of 1988 before the MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland being registered as MAC Case No. 12/2020 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 29.01.2020 involving a vehicle bearing No. NL-02C-6422, wherein the claimant/R-1 was walking on foot on the roadside of Old Dikhu Road near Chuchuyimpang Village, Mokokchung. While walking, the Maruti car bearing No. NL-02C-6422 hit him from the opposite direction. As a result he sustained bodily injury, with a compound fracture of Tibia and was rushed to the hospital. In the claim petition, the present appellant was impleaded as opposite party no. 1. 4. The learned Tribunal by Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022 awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,87,758/- (Rupees Eleven lakh Eighty- seven thousand Seven hundred Fifty-eight only) and thereby fastened the entire liability upon the appellant Company payable within 30 (thirty) days from the date of filing the claim petition @9% per annum till realization. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds: (i) The instant claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act of 1988 and as such the onus was on the claimants/respondents to prove the rash and negligent driving by conclusive and concrete evidence which was not done by the claimant/R-1 before the Tribunal. (ii) That as per the Accident Information Report issued by the Traffic Control, Mokokchung vide GDE No. 203/2020 dated 29.01.2020, the case of the accident could not have been ascertained as there was no FIR and there was no investigation conducted. (iii) That the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the injury sustained by the claimant/R-1 was a simple injury and not permanent disability. (iii) That the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the injury sustained by the claimant/R-1 was a simple injury and not permanent disability. More so, the disability of the claimant being temporary or permanent is not specified in the disability certificate. In the absence of such distinction of temporary or permanent disability of the claimant, the learned Tribunal could not have come to a conclusion that the claimant sustained permanent disability. (iv) There is no evidence of the Investigating Officer to prove that the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, in as much as no sketch-map or Accident Information Report or any other such documents were exhibited by the claimants. Moreover, no Final Investigation Report was produced before the learned Tribunal. (v) The learned Tribunal overlooked the most vital aspect of the case that the attending Doctor was not examined to prove the disability of the claimant and none of the Doctors who were members of the Medical Board which issued the disability certificate were examined. (vi) The claimant/R-1 is a daily-wage laborer and claimed to earn Rs.700/- per day; however, the claimant did not produce any documentary evidence to establish his skilled work, more so such income is not regular income and it depends on the job opportunities. However, the learned Tribunal assessed the loss of income of the claimant as Rs. 17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand Five hundred only) per month which is illegal and untenable. (vii) The learned Tribunal overlooked the fact that as per various authorities of the Supreme Court, the rate of interest awarded at 9% per annum from the date of final claim petition till realization is on the higher side. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Versus Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 had laid down the principle to calculate compensation and rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum but the learned Tribunal in violation of such principles has imposed rate of interest @ 9% per annum. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case laws to support his contention. (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chandreswar Thakur & Ors. reported in 2001 (1) GLT 393 (ii) Judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC App.63/2013 dated 29.01.2018. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case laws to support his contention. (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chandreswar Thakur & Ors. reported in 2001 (1) GLT 393 (ii) Judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC App.63/2013 dated 29.01.2018. (iii) Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar & Another reported in AIR ONLINE 2010 SC 125, AIR ONLINE 2010 SC 144 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in view of the above submissions and the authorities relied upon prays that the Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022 in MAC Case No. 12/2020 may be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant/R-1, Mr. Tongpok Pongener submits that the factum of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant/R-1 is not disputed. The fact about the vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner is also not disputed. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned Judgment and Order on the ISSUE No. 1 : “Whether the claimant Longdise Sangtam was hit by Vehicle No. NL-02C-6422 on 29.01.2020? If so, whether the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner?” The Tribunal has observed that after the PW-1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined, the counsel for the opposite parties did not rebut the statement/evidence rendered by the PWs. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the ISSUE No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimant without being rebutted by the opposite parties. And therefore, the appellant cannot raise the issue that the rash and negligent driving was not proven before the learned Tribunal. Regarding the disability, the learned counsel for the claimant/R-1 submits that the disability certificate was issued by the medical board duly constituted by the Department of Health and Family Welfare Nagaland and the same was exhibited before the Trial Court as Exhibit-10. When such a genuine disability certificate was produced by the claimant there was no necessity to prove the same by further evidence. He has submitted that when a disability certificate is given by a duly constituted medical board, it may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificate. When such a genuine disability certificate was produced by the claimant there was no necessity to prove the same by further evidence. He has submitted that when a disability certificate is given by a duly constituted medical board, it may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificate. With regard to the rate of interest, the learned counsel has referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7593 of 2022 in the case of Manusha Sreekumar And Others Versus The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and a Judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC.App./10/2022 in Order dated 12.09.2024 where the Court had awarded an interest @ 9% per annum. Learned counsel submits that the discretion lies with the Tribunal as to how much interest is to be imposed. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the imposition of 9% interest by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel has therefore prayed that the appeal may be dismissed as the appellant has failed to make out a case for the interference of this Court. 9. I have considered the submissions of the opposing counsels and perused the pleadings and also the authorities relied upon by the parties. This Court has also gone through the original Trial Court records. Upon going through the impugned Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2022, it is seen that the learned Tribunal had framed five issues, which are:- “ISSUE No. 1. Whether claimant Longdise Sangtam was involved in accident on 29.01.2020 in vehicle No. NL02-C-6422? If so, whether the said vehicle was rash and negligent in driving? ISSUE No. 2. Whether the said vehicle was having all requisite documents and effective driving license at the time of accident? ISSUE No. 3. Whether the claimant suffered permanent disability? ISSUE No. 4. What was the age and income of the claimant at the time of accident? ISSUE No. 5. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and payable by whom?” 10. As far as ISSUE No. 1 is concerned, the counsel for the opposite parties did not rebut the statements/evidence rendered by the PWs. It is, therefore, established that the claimant was injured by the vehicle No. NL- 02C-6422 on 29.01.2020. It was also established that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. 11. As far as ISSUE No. 1 is concerned, the counsel for the opposite parties did not rebut the statements/evidence rendered by the PWs. It is, therefore, established that the claimant was injured by the vehicle No. NL- 02C-6422 on 29.01.2020. It was also established that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. 11. ISSUE No. 3 was regarding the permanent disability suffered by the claimant and the extent of the disability. On going through the impugned Judgment and Order it is seen that the counsel for the Insurer had submitted before the Tribunal that though the claimant had produced the disability certificate issued by a medical board of Civil Hospital, Mokokchung no Doctor was examined to prove its authenticity and that the certificate is, therefore, doubtful and liable to be rejected. But the learned Tribunal did not accept this submission. With regard to the issue of permanent disability, the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar (Supra) has held that permanent disability can be either partial or total and 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 disability certificate states that the injured has suffered a 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. It was further held that the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the 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, i.e., the permanent disability suffered by the person? If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. If the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. If the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. Only after the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it is to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. The Court, further went on to state that the Tribunals should act with caution when accepting the disability certificate without proper medical assessment and the Tribunal should make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. 12. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) the Division Bench of this Court held that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the claimant suffered permanent disability without examining the Doctor. Since the claimant had sustained injury it was incumbent on the part of the claimant to have examined the Doctor and established its case as to what percentage of permanent disability was suffered by the claimant. Non examination of the Doctor to establish the extent of disability suffered by the claimant denies the opportunity to the Insurance Company to cross-examine the Doctor. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the impugned Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022 warrants the interference of this Court. In the result, the impugned Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned MACT, Mokokchung Nagaland in MAC Case No. 12/2020 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the Tribunal to start the proceedings afresh from the stage of examination of a Doctor who was a member of the Medical Board which issued the disability certificate. The Insurance Company would be entitled to cross-examine the Doctor. The case is remanded back to the Tribunal to start the proceedings afresh from the stage of examination of a Doctor who was a member of the Medical Board which issued the disability certificate. The Insurance Company would be entitled to cross-examine the Doctor. This court would not like to express any view on the rate of interest as the tribunal has to exercise its discretion in awarding interest allowing for adjustments based on the facts of the case. 14. With the aforesaid directions this appeal is disposed of. The Insurance Company is allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit. The Registry is directed to transmit the Case Records to the learned MACT, Mokokchung, Nagaland immediately.