Judgment Prasun Kumar Deb, J. Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award passed analogously on 2.4.1990 by the then 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur, in M.J.C. Case No. 34 of 1985 and M.J.C. Case No. 35 of 1985. As the appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, both have been heard analogously and are also disposed of by a single judgment. 2. The claimant of M.J.C. No. 34 of 1985 has preferred M.A. No. 615 of 1990 (R) while M.A. No. 616 of 1990 (R) has been preferred by the claimant of M.J.C. No. 35 of 1985. Both the appellants-claimants are related to each other as father and son. 3. The occurrence took place on 4.11.1984. Both the appellants were travelling on a Rajdoot Motor Cycle bearing registration no. BRX 2381 from Jugsalai to Haldipokhar. The motor cycle was driven by Sagarmal Agrawal, the father while the son Ajoy Kumar Agrawal was pillion rider. When the appellants reached near village Tiruldih at about 15.30 hours on Tata-Chaibasa Road, a truck bearing registration no. BRX 4260 came in a high speed from the opposite direction. It first dashed against another truck bearing registration no. BHI 9541 and thereafter dashed the motor-cycle and as a result of such dashing, both the occupants of the motor cycle sustained severe injuries. They were admitted to hospital and remained some time in the hospital as indoor patients. The appellant Sagarmal Agrawal has sustained fracture injury on his legs and some other injuries on different parts of the body but severe injuries on the leg. Ajoy Kumar Agrawal has sustained more injury than his father. His legs were also fractured and he remained in hospital' from 4.11.1984 to 13.3.1985. There was no denial of the accident and that the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident has also not been denied and the learned tribunal also found that the vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. 4. Several witnesses have been examined in the case. While P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the injured-appellants, P.W. 5 is the Head Assistant posted in the Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, in the Accounts department. Some documents have also been exhibited to show the cost being incurred in course of treatment of the injured persons. 4. Several witnesses have been examined in the case. While P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the injured-appellants, P.W. 5 is the Head Assistant posted in the Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, in the Accounts department. Some documents have also been exhibited to show the cost being incurred in course of treatment of the injured persons. The learned tribunal on perusal of those medical bills which were marked as exhibits has determined the medical expenses of the injured Ajoy Kumar Agrawal as Rs.9,450/- while that of Sagarmal Agrawal as Rs.3,826/-. There is some sort of personal disablement in respect of both the injured-appellants, but as mentioned earlier, the injury on the person of Ajoy Kumar Agrawal had caused him permanently impaired in doing his normal invocation. It has come in evidence that Ajoy Kumar Agrawal cannot marry also because of disablement. He was using callipers/stick for the purpose of movement. He cannot sit properly and he can sit by extending his legs and not in normal way. According to doctor, such injury shall remain for ever. Although by some physiotherapy, movement of the impaired legs may be improved to some extent but there is no scope of normality in near future in respect of Ajoy Kumar Agrawal. 5. The learned tribunal below while assessing the compensation held that the injured-appellant Sagarmal Agrawal would get Rs.35,600/- as compensation towards the following heads:- (i) Rs.10,000/- for his sufferings and injury. (ii) Rs.3,826/- as medical expenses. (iii) Rs.20,000/- as loss of earnings; and (iv) Rs.4,000/- as his special diet. As Rs.7,500/- was paid earlier towards interim relief, the said amount had been deducted and the Insurance Company had been asked to pay Rs.30,000/- to Sagarmal Agrawal making the award in round figure. 6. Regarding Ajoy Kumar Agrawal, the amount of Rs.37,500/- making it in the round figure of 37,500/- had been assessed on the following heads :- (i) Medical expenses Rs.9,450/-. (ii) Pains and sufferings Rs.20,000/-. (iii) For special diet Rs.9,000/-. Although the amount in total comes up to Rs.38,450/-, it was rounded up to Rs.37,500/- and by deducting Rs.7,500/- towards interim relief, the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. 7. Mr. (iii) For special diet Rs.9,000/-. Although the amount in total comes up to Rs.38,450/-, it was rounded up to Rs.37,500/- and by deducting Rs.7,500/- towards interim relief, the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. 7. Mr. S.N. Lal, appearing for and on behalf of the appellants has argued strenuously by referring to a judgment of the Apex Court in 1995 (1) ACC 281 to the effect that the learned tribunal failed in proper assessment of compensation. According to him, when Ajoy Kumar Agrawal has become permanently disabled and when he has to take medical treatment for the whole of his life, some future expenses towards treatment ought to have been granted. He has also not considered the cost toward physiotherapy. As regards Sagarmal Agrawal although some sort of permanent disablement is there but as per the doctor's advice, by regular exercise, he would be able to do his normal invocation. No amount has been assessed towards the loss of earnings, as regards Ajoy Kumar Agrawal moreover some more documents were on record itself regarding the expenditure in the treatment but the tribunal had only taken into consideration about the hospital expenses i.e. hospital charges which had been paid by the injured persons at the time of discharge as indoor patient. Regarding Sagarmal Agrawal I am not inclined to interfere with the assessment of compensation as made by the learned tribunal. With regard to the assessment of compensation as made by the learned tribunal in the case of Ajoy Kumar Agrawal, definitely the assessment is not proper but it must be borne in mind that practically there is no such evidence adduced from the side of the claimant for proper assessment of compensation and, therefore, the tribunal itself was handicapped in making proper assessment but in such sort of cases, there is scope of inference and assessment regarding future expenditure towards treatment. It has not been stated as to what Ajoy Kumar Agrawal was doing at the time of accident nor it has been stated as to what he is doing in these days. It has also not been stated that coming from the business community, because of impairment Ajoy Kumar Agrawal was not in a position to attend to his business. It has not been stated as to what Ajoy Kumar Agrawal was doing at the time of accident nor it has been stated as to what he is doing in these days. It has also not been stated that coming from the business community, because of impairment Ajoy Kumar Agrawal was not in a position to attend to his business. Therefore, there is no scope of any award towards loss of future earnings but again if he is not doing anything due to permanent disablement towards earning, then he becomes burden to the family and that aspect should also be considered while assessing compensation. 8. Again the learned tribunal has committed error on the face of it while granting same quantum of compensation to both father and son when admittedly the son's disablement is of much higher degree than that of the father and in that view of the matter, the son is entitled to more compensation than his father. When some more bills are there although not properly exhibited but' it appears that during the courses of long treatment, Ajoy Kumar Agrawal had to spend amounts from time to time. There is also expectation of more expenditure because of his future physiotherapy etc., When there is little scope of giving proper assessment because of lack of data and strata being supplied from the side of the claimant, I feel that in case of Ajoy Kumar Agrawal, a lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/- would be proper and just towards compensation which I do accordingly. The rate of interest is too low, although, the Apex Court has observed that in compensation case, rate of interest should be at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 9. Hence, M.A. No. 615 of 1990 (R) is rejected with the modification in the interest portion by raising It from 6% to 12% per annum while M.A. No. 616 of 1990 (R) is hereby partly allowed by enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs.37,500/- to Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The rate of interest would be calculated from the date of application on the amount which had already been awarded by the learned tribunal and on the balance amount, the interest would be calculated from this date. The rate of interest would be calculated from the date of application on the amount which had already been awarded by the learned tribunal and on the balance amount, the interest would be calculated from this date. The amount must be paid if not already paid by deducting interim compensation already deposited within three months next positively from this date. If the amount is not paid within the said period, then the claimant-appellant would be entitled to enhanced interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the expiry of the peremptory date till the date of realisation. There will be no order as to costs.