1. The applicant-respondent No. 1, who was driver of a Matador No. CPG-8309, received injuries in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a Bus No. MBW-1368.

2. Learned third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 151/96 vide the award dated 4.12.1996 came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1-applicant suffered injuries on account of negligent driving of the bus and consequently granted compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- against which the present appeal has been filed on behalf of Insurance Company.

3. The learned Counsel of respondent No. 1, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal in absence of permission to defend on other ground envisaged under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, this controversy has been set at rest by the Honble Apex Court by its decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhushan Sachdeva and Ors. reported on , holding that Insurance Company falls within the ambit of words any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal, when the insured failed to file an appeal; the insurer can challenge the award on all grounds available to the insured.

4. The learned Counsel of the appellant has submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation more than the amount claimed under different heads.

5. We have heard the learned Counsels for parties at length and have perused the record.

6. It is true that in the application an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed towards permanent disability and the earning capacity as a driver was claimed at Rs. 1,000/- per month. However, the learned Claims Tribunal looking to the seriousness of the injuries and permanent disability allowed a compensation under this head Rs. 90,000/- and so far as the income is concerned the learned Claims Tribunal assessed it as Rs. 1,200/- per month. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench decisibn of Gujarat High Court in the case of Urmila J. Sangani v. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana reported in : AIR2000Guj211 , wherein it has been pointed out that Tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to award compensation higher than the amount claimed by the claimant in the claim-petition. But, it should not be lost sight of that in this case the controversy was about the total amount of compensation and not its head wise calculation. In the circumstances, in our opinion, this case is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. This Court in the case of Udairam v. Mohammad Usman and Ors. reported in , has also considered the question of awarding more amount than claimed under the head physical pain and mental agony and expressed the view that if the award does not exceed the total amount of what is claimed, it is not necessary for the claimants to specify the claimed amount under separate heads while claiming general damages.

8. In the circumstances in our opinion the learned Claims Tribunal has committed no error in awarding more amount under different heads than claimed in the application. What is to be seen in such cases is whether the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.

9. The learned Counsel of the appellant has further urged that the permanent disability in the present case has not been properly proved and the doctor who had treated the applicant was not produced in evidence. However, on perusal of the statement of Dr. B.C. Bandil (PW-3) it is found that he had examined the applicant on the basis of the records of his treatment including the x-ray plates, on the basis of which gave the certificate of permanent disability (Ex. P-12) wherein it has been clearly mentioned that applicant was treated in Microsurgery Ward from 29.7.1987 to 4.8.1987 for facie maxillary injuries and head injury and from 5.8.1987 to 27.8.1987 for fracture of shaft-femer right in Orthopaedic Ward, where nailing was done. At present he found there is a nail in position. The doctor found the applicant having depression of left molar prominence and scars over cheek and pink due to that there is permanent disfiguration of his face on account of accidental injuries. In the circumstances, on our opinion, from the statement of the doctor it is found proved that the applicant had sustained permanent disability and disfiguration of his face.

10. The learned Claims Tribunal after examining the evidence as produced on behalf of the applicant came to the conclusion that the applicant became permanently disabled so far as his job of driving is concerned. The learned Tribunal further came to the conclusion that even if no document is produced regarding income of the applicant as a driver, if his income as a skilled labour is assessed, he would have earned atleast Rs. 1,200/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation which, in our opinion, is found just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the injuries sustained by the applicant.

11. Lastly, the learned Counsel of appellant submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding interest on the total amount of compensation as the applicant is not entitled to the same on account of his causing delay in disposal of the claim case. However, after examining the record we are of the opinion that the delay caused is not fully attributable to the applicant. However, taking into consideration the implications arising under the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaushnunta Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in I (2001) ACC 151 (SC), it is a fit case where the rate of interest deserves to be reduced from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. It is, therefore, directed that the interest to be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application.

12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, except reducing the rate of interest indicated hereinabove, this appeal fails for the remaining relief and is dismissed.