A. K. Patnaik. J. — This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and Award dated 8.9.92 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Title Suit (MAC) No. 120 of 1990 filed by the claimant/appellant. 2. The facts briefly are that on 23.1.90 the appellant was travelling in a Jeep bearing Registration No.TRT 459 from Nagichhara to his residence at Maloynagar. The said jeep landed in a ditch on the right side of the road and as a result the appellant sustained injuries and became unconscious. He was thereafter taken for treatment to GB Hospital where the attending doctor opined that his right eye had been badly affected. He was referred to Guwahati for further treatment and he received further treatment at Guwahati. But his right eye was damaged beyond recovery. In the circumstances, he filed Title Suit (MAC) 120 of 1990 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala and by the impugned judgment and Award dated 8.9.92, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards the medical treatment of the eye of the appellant and sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation for the loss of eyesight totaling a sum of Rs.55,000 with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, ie 16.7.90. 3. Mr. SK Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant has lost his eyesight of the right eye and that the compensation of Rs.55,000 awarded by the Tribunal in grossly inadequate. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashendra Lahiri vs. Unicef & others, 1998 ACJ 859, wherein the Supreme Court has enhanced the award for permanent disablement of a student of B. Com. from Rs.58,000 to Rs.4,58,000. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of RD Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 ACJ 366, wherein the Supreme Court enhanced the award from Rs.8,57,352 to Rs. 14,46,000 in a case of practising lawyer who suffered total permanent disability in a motor accident. Mr. Dutta contended that since, in the present case also, as per the opinion of the doctor who has been examined by the Tribunal, the appellant had suffered loss of his right eye permanently, he was entitled to much higher compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Mr. Dutta contended that since, in the present case also, as per the opinion of the doctor who has been examined by the Tribunal, the appellant had suffered loss of his right eye permanently, he was entitled to much higher compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. He further argued that at the time of accident, the appellant was earning Rs.l,800 per months as an employee under a contractor. After the accident, he pursued his studies with a lot of difficulties and has become a graduate and he had a very bright prospect but for the permanent damage to his eye, he lost the said prospect. He further pointed out that the claim of the appellant towards medical expenses for treatment was Rs.25,000 but the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 15,0007-. He submitted that as per medical expert's advice, the appellant g has to get his damaged right eye removed for the purpose of saving his left eye and this will also involve expenses which have not been taken care of in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. 4. Dr. HK Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant has received the entire award amount of Rs.70,587 inclusive of interest by way of full and final settlement of his claim and that after receiving the appeal at a belated stage well beyond the period of limitation without disclosing in the memorandum of appeal that be had already received the awarded sum. According to Dr. Bhattacharjee, this appeal ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. Dr. Bhattacharjee further submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant was not a graduate and had not even passed 'Madhyamik' and that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and sufficient. 5. On a reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in RD Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd (supra), we find that the Apex Court has made a distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 5. On a reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in RD Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd (supra), we find that the Apex Court has made a distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court has further held that pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money, such as expenses on medical attendance, loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial and other material loss and non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations, such as damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life, damages for loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment frustration and mental stress in life. Thus, on the facts of each case, the Tribunal or the Court will have to assess the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages that the claimant may have suffered in an accident. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said decision of the Supreme Court are quoted herein below : “11. In the case Ward vs. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, it was said: ”Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his 'lost years', you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected 'years of survival'. You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being tendered a helpless invalid ? He may, owing to the brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well- nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money.” 12. No wonder they find it well- nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money.” 12. In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in case of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards.” 6. In the said case of RD Hattangadi (supra), the Supreme Court took into account the facts of that case and awarded compensation under different heads totaling to a sum of Rs. 14,46,000. In the said case the claimant was a practising lawyer aged 52 years and on account of the accident suffered paraplegia below the waist resulting in total disability and required continuous treatment throughout his life. In Shashendra Lahiri vs. Unicef & others (supra), the Supreme Court found that the claimant suffered multiple injuries which required his treatment as an indoor patient in a hospital at Bhopal and then in a Bombay hospital and that the injuries caused several fractures requiring bone-grafting a and resulted in the permanent shortening of the right leg of the claimant by 3 inches, and on these facts held that the award of Rs.58,000 was inadequate and awarded a further amount of Rs.4,00,000. 7. In the present case, on the other hand the appellant was an employee under a contractor with a salary of Rs. 1,8007- per month, and he appears to have lost his right eye as a result of the accident. The injury in the right eye suffered by the appellant has been described by PW 3, Medical Officer in the Eye Department of GB Hospital, in his evidence before the Tribunal, as follows : “On 23.1.90 I was posted as Medical Officer in the Eye Department of GB Hospital. On that day one patient named Gopal Ch Saha was admitted in the Surgical Deptt and the following day he was referred to the Eye Deptt. I have examined him and found that his right eye bole was ruptured towards the nasal side. The eye bole was full of blood. On that day one patient named Gopal Ch Saha was admitted in the Surgical Deptt and the following day he was referred to the Eye Deptt. I have examined him and found that his right eye bole was ruptured towards the nasal side. The eye bole was full of blood. On the above and below the right eye there was lacerated injuries. Eye was operated and the ruptured was repaired. The eye sight was affected. He almost lost his eye sight except perception of light. When we released him there was no improvement of his eye sight and we did not find any chance of his recovery. He was in the Hospital from 23.1.90 to 15.2.90. It appears from the discharge certificate that the patient was referred to Regional Institute of Opthalmology at Guwahati. It appears from the relevant records of that Institute that the removal of the affective eye was suggested to save the other eye. Such injuries may be caused by various reasons including road traffic accident.” It is evident from the description of injury as given by PW 3, quoted above, that the appellant has lost eye sight of his right eye and there was no chance of e recovery of the said eye. Further, he was referred to the Regional Institute of Opthalmology at Guwahati and the said Institute has suggested removal of his affected eye to save the other eye. It further appears from the evidence of the appellant, who was examined as PW 1 that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.25,000 for his treatment. But the said evidence of PW 1 has been disbelieved by the Tribunal only on the ground that the treatment at Guwahati would not involve an expenditure of Rs.25,000. The Tribunal has instead awarded a sum of Rs.15,000 for his treatment only on a conjecture. In our opinion, the expenditure of Rs.25,000 on medical treatment as claimed by PW 1, appellant, in his evidence was fair and reasonable treatment has to be kept aside for future complications as the Regional Institute of Opthalmology at Guwahati appears to have suggested removal of the affected eye for as vent the other eye. We are & therefore of the opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000 ought to have been awarded to the appellant towards medical treatment. 8. We are & therefore of the opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000 ought to have been awarded to the appellant towards medical treatment. 8. Further, the appellant has suffered mental and physical shock, amenities of life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. Moreover, the loss of his right eye will obviously affect his future employment resulting in loss of his income. Considering all these facts, we award a sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) to the appellant towards other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in addition to the aforesaid sum of Rs.50,000 towards medical treatment. 9. We are not impressed by the argument of Dr. HK Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, that as the appellant has already received the amount as awarded by the Tribunal along with the interest towards full and final settlement of his claim and has filed this appeal after two years of the expiry of the limitation, this appeal should be dismissed. No documents has been produced before us to show that the appellant has at any time agreed that he would not file any appeal before this Court if he was paid the amount of compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Nor does section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, make any provision that a person who has received the amount as awarded by the Claim Tribunal cannot file any appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. The delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned by this Court and has been condoned in this case. Considering however the fact that the amount as awarded by the Tribunal has already been received by the appellant before he filed this appeal and considering further the fact that this appeal has been filed after a period of almost two years beyond the expiry of the period of limitation, we are not inclined to grant interest on the enhanced amount or the costs of this appeal in favour of the appellant. In case, however, the respondent-insurance company fails to pay the enhanced amount to the appellant within three months from today, the appellant will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the filing of this appeal. 10. In case, however, the respondent-insurance company fails to pay the enhanced amount to the appellant within three months from today, the appellant will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the filing of this appeal. 10. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are modified to the extent indicated in paragraphs 7,8 and 9 of this judgment, and we direct that the respondent-insurance company e will pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,95,000 (Rs.2.50,000 minus Rs.55,000 already received by the appellant together with the interest) to the appellant within a period of three (3) months from today failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of this appeal, ie (11.8.94). However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.