JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1. 2. The appellant suffered serious injuries in a motor vehicular accident which had taken place on 13.12.1999 and was taken for treatment to Kothari Medical hospital at Kolkata. The appellant was treated in the said hospital from 15.12.1999 to 30.12.1999. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation for injury that she suffered from that accident. After trial, learned Tribunal held that the petitioner suffered injury for speed and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No. TR-01-1421 as owned by the respondent No. 1. The said vehicle at the relevant point of time was insured by the respondent No. 2. On consideration of the documents as brought in evidence as Exhibit 1 series, learned Tribunal passed an award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- altogether without any interest. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. The grievance for the appeal finds its root in quantum of the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal being T.S. (MAC) No. 212 of 2000 by the judgment and award dated 08.04.2003 in as much as the same cannot be stated to be a just compensation as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Learned counsel for the appellant on taking me to the Exhibit 1 series submits that those documents stand to prove that the appellant had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 59,990/- for her treatment. The learned Court below had not considered those while making assessment of compensation. It has been stated further that loss of income and pain were not made component of assessment. Contrary thereto, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 strenuously contended that the award had assessed the just compensation and no interference is called for. 5. Having scrutinized the Exhibit 1 series I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has got sufficient force. 6. On appreciating the impugned judgment and award, it appears that no compensation was awarded for pain and loss of income. 7. In view of that the impugned judgment and award stands modified to Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty five thousand) by summing up Rs. 59,990/- say Rs. 6. On appreciating the impugned judgment and award, it appears that no compensation was awarded for pain and loss of income. 7. In view of that the impugned judgment and award stands modified to Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty five thousand) by summing up Rs. 59,990/- say Rs. 60,000/- as medical expenses and another Rs. 25,000/- for the pain and loss of income. 8. The respondent No. 2 is directed to make payment of the said award with 9% interest from 18.04.2000, the date of filing the application within a period of two months from today. 9. With this observation and direction, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed