JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Prasenjit Mandal : 1. THIS appeal along. With cross objection, being COT No. 31 of 2010, are taken up together. Although the original memorandum of the cross objection is not available on record, let the copy of the memorandum of the cross objection filed by M. Banik, learned Advocate appearing for the claimants, be kept with the record and be treated as original, so long the original is not found out. 2. THIS appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 31st January, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 3rd Bench, Kolkata in MJC Case No. 700 of 2006 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injury of the victim, which resulted from an accident, where the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant. It appears from record that the victim was in the age group of 30-years and thus, the learned Tribunal below applied the multiplier of 17. The learned Tribunal below relied upon the certificate indicating that the victim became disabled to the extent of 35% and by treating his monthly income to be Rs.3,000/-, the learned Tribunal below applied the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus, arrived at a figure of Rs.2,14,200/-. 3. AFTER arriving at such figure, the learned Tribunal below was of the view that since the victim had spent huge amount of money for the medical expenses, he should be given a total lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, the balance amount of Rs.85,800/- was awarded towards the medical expenses. 4. BEING dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously contended before us that the proceeding being one under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there was no scope of awarding any amount more than Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the medical expenditure and thus, the learned Tribunal below erred in law in awarding a sum of Rs.85,800/- towards the medical expenditure. 5. MR. Ganguly, therefore, prays for reducing the amount to Rs.2,14,200/- + 15,000/- = Rs.2,29,200/- instead of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal below. 6. MR. Banik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants and the cross objectors, has, however, vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention of MR. 5. MR. Ganguly, therefore, prays for reducing the amount to Rs.2,14,200/- + 15,000/- = Rs.2,29,200/- instead of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal below. 6. MR. Banik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants and the cross objectors, has, however, vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention of MR. Ganguly and has contended that according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, in case of non-fatal injury, a claimant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as one time payment but there is no bar of awarding further amount for medical expenditure incurred subsequently. We are afraid we are not at all impressed by such submission of Mr. Banik. 7. ACCORDING to the Second Schedule of the Act, in case of death, the maximum amount is limited to Rs.15,000/- for the medical expenditure for the simple reason that in such proceeding, the victim or the claimants are not required to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle, It is preposterous to suggest that although for the death of a victim the compensation towards the medical expenditure should be limited to Rs.15,000/-, yet in case of nonfatal injury the amount can be unlimited, provided for each treatment, the maximum amount of Rs.15,000/- can be given. 8. IT is apparent that the intention of the legislature was to limit the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,000/- not only for the death case but also for the injury case, but the additional phrase "as one-time payment" was included in case of non-fatal injury lest any agreement was advanced that for future medical expenditure further amount should also be payable. We, therefore, find no merit in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Banik. We, however, find substance in the other contention of Mr. Banik raised in the cross objection that a further amount of Rs.5,000.00 was payable towards pain and suffering, as provided in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. WE, therefore, hold that in the fact of the present case, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.2,14,200.00 = Rs.15,000.00 for medical expenditure + Rs.5,000.00 for pain and suffering = Rs.2,34,200.00 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the application till such payment is made. 10. THE award impugned is, thus, modified to the extent indicated above. 10. THE award impugned is, thus, modified to the extent indicated above. THE appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount as awarded by us by this order by issuing an Account Payee Cheque in the name of the respondent No.1 at the address as given in the cause title of this appeal, namely, 33, Elliot Road, Kolkata-700016 within a month from today. After the said cheque is encashed by the respondent No.1, the appellant will be entitled to realize the statutory deposit made while preferring the appeal Office is directed to release the amount once the document is shown indicating realization of the awarded amount by the respondent No.1 11. THE appeal and the cross objection are thus, disposed off. 12. IN view of disposal of the appeal and the cross objection it selves, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is disposed off accordingly. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties within a week from the date of filing of the application.