Hon’ble Mahboob Ali, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

2. This first appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/appellant (‘appellant’, for short) against the judgment and award dated 12.5.2006 passed by Sri Nihal Ahmad Siddiqui, Additional District Judge, Court No. 6 Shahjahanpur/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’, for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 128 of 2003 (Amit Kumar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others), whereby the Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 42,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition.

Briefly stated the facts are;

That on 25.4.2003 at about 6.30 a.m. the claimant/appellant was going by his bicycle to take his High School examination, when he reached near Collectorganj, a motor cycle bearing registration No. UP 27 E 1073, rashly and negligently driven by Mukesh Kumar, dashed the cycle from behind as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and he was taken to Kanaujia Nursing Home, Shahjahanpur where he remained admitted from 25.4.2003 to 14.5.2003, his left leg was found fractured from the thigh for which an operation was done on 30.4.2003, in which steel rod was implanted and bone grafting was done. The appellant filed the claim petition for the compensation of Rs. 11 lacs.

Respondent No. 2 Chhote Lal and respondent No. 3 Mukesh Kumar in their written statements, denied the factum of accident.

Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company contested the matter alleging that the amount claimed for compensation is highly exaggerated, no accident took place on 25.4.2003 at the place as alleged and appellant himself was driving his bicycle on the road rashly and negligently.

3. On the basis of evidence on record, the Tribunal has proceeded to award a compensation of Rs. 42,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

4. The appellant has challenged the award, inter alia, on the following grounds :

(i) That the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of employment and income of the appellant.

(ii) That the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act but the Tribunal has wrongly considered the provisions of II schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(iii) That loss of earning capacity of the appellant has been discarded on the ground that disability certificate is not produced and the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of Dr. Sanjeev Kanaujia who deposed in the Court that due to fracture steel rod and screws were implanted in the fractured leg of the appellant and bone grafting was done.

(iv) That the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the appellant is unfit for military services for which he could have been selected under the Army quota because his father was in the Army.

(v) The Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the pain and sufferings, mental agony and future medical expenses of the appellant who remained admitted in the hospital from 25.4.2003 to 14.5.2003, where his operation was done.

(vi) That the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the interest at the rate of 6% per annum, whereas it should have been awarded at the rate of 12% per annum.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company sought to justify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal contending that there is no disability nor any disability certificate has been filed by the petitioner.

6. The Tribunal having concluded that the petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident, has proceeded to award Rs. 5000/- to the appellant/petitioner for the injuries according to Para 4 (1) (a) of Second Schedule to Section 163-A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rs. 32,000/- towards medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- as diet money.

7. The Tribunal has observed in its judgment that there is no disability in the body of the petitioner neither any disability certificate of Chief Medical Officer has been fi