ORDER The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been preferred against the judgment dated 6.10.2010 and award dated 26.11.2010, passed by Sri Shyam Bihari Rai, learned 6th Additional District Judge – cum – Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal , Rohtas at Sasaram (hereinafter referred to as “Claim Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 50 of 2005, Tr. No. 14 of 2009, whereby , the learned Claim Tribunal while allowing the claim petition has directed the appellant i.e. insurer of the offending vehicle to pay Rs. 3, 23,995/- along with 6 % interest to the claimant from the date of filing of the petition dated 1.7.2005 till date of payment, failing which, the appellant was directed to pay 12% interest from the date of order till date of payment. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 1st July, 2005, a petition under Section 166 of the Act read with Rule 226(1) of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rule, 1992, was filed by the claimant in the court of District Judge – cum – Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtas at Sasaram, which was registered as M.V. Claim Case No. 50 of 2005, disclosing therein that respondent no. 1 on 23.3.2004 at about 11 A.M. while going to school was met with an accident at village Sanjhauli, Ara - Sasaram Pucca Road, ½ K.M. North from Sanjhauli Police Station. In the said accident a truck bearing registration no. BIR5121 was involved, which was under insurance cover of the appellant i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd at the time of accident. After the accident a F.I.R. vide Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 11 of 2004 was registered. In the said accident, injured, who was a school going girl had got 50% permanent disablement. After filing of the claim case along with number of documents the claimant adduced four witnesses in support of the claim. Before the Claim Tribunal the appellant appeared and filed written statement and prayed for dismissing the claim petition. However, finally the learned Claim Tribunal by the judgment dated 6.10.2010 and award dated 26.11.2010 allowed the claim case and directed to pay compensation as indicated above. 3. Aggrieved with the judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Before the Claim Tribunal the appellant appeared and filed written statement and prayed for dismissing the claim petition. However, finally the learned Claim Tribunal by the judgment dated 6.10.2010 and award dated 26.11.2010 allowed the claim case and directed to pay compensation as indicated above. 3. Aggrieved with the judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the compensation amount is on higher scale. At the time of accident, the victim was a minor girl, and as such, there was no question of loss of any income. He has also questioned the disability certificate. He submits that it was a case of fracture which has been subsequently cured, and as such, injury can not be categorized as a case of permanent disablement. He further submits that the learned Claim Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing compensation towards loss of future income to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- whereas, in the present case compensation amount has been calculated as per Schedule II of the M.V. Act. Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, on the point of direction for payment of 12% interest in case of non payment of the compensation amount within time, has argued that in any event, the learned Claim Tribunal has committed serious error in directing for payment of such interest, which amounts to imposing penal interest which is not permissible in the eye of law as well as in view of settled principle of law enunciated in (2004) 2 SCC 370 (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KESHAV BAHADUR AND OTHERS). He has specifically referred to paragraph no. 13 of the said judgment. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to quote the same, which is as follows: - “13. Though Section 110-CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the new Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal.” Regarding compensation towards loss of future income, he submits that since in the present case compensation was calculated as per provision contained in Section 163-A and Schedule II of the Act, the learned Claim Tribunal has erred in granting compensation under the said head. In support of his argument he has relied on an Apex Court judgment reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 (RAJ KUMAR Versus AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER). On aforesaid grounds he has argued that the judgment and award is fit to be set aside and alternatively he has argued that compensation towards loss of future income as well as penal interest are liable to be set aside. 5. Sri Siddharth Harsh, learned counsel for the claimant/ respondent no. 1 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. 6. In the present case the respondent no. 1 has also filed a counter affidavit. It has been asserted by Sri Harsh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, that the injury which was caused in the accident is a continuous injury, which is regularly being treated by medical experts, and as such, according to him, it was a case for enhancement of the compensation amount. Along with the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has brought on record number of documents, which are medical bills and doctor’s prescription to show that respondent no. Along with the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has brought on record number of documents, which are medical bills and doctor’s prescription to show that respondent no. 1 injured is being regularly treated and respondents are incurring expenses till date, and as such, the respondent no. 1 is required to be adequately compensated. He further submits that certificate of disablement which shows 50% permanent disablement in respect of injured may not be questioned before this court since those documents were thoroughly examined by the learned Claim Tribunal. Besides noticing documents, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that the learned Claim Tribunal has also noticed the physical abnormality of the claimant during the trial. In any event, as per learned counsel for respondent no. 1, the appeal is fit to be rejected. Sri Harsh, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 relying on a recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in [2012] Acci. C.R. 1 (S.C.) (GOVIND YADAV versus THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED), has argued that time without number the Apex Court has held that in case of permanent injury, compensation towards loss of future income is to be granted. He has referred to paragraph no. 18 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow: - “18. The award made by the Tribunal for future medical expenses was wholly inadequate. In Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , this Court considered whether it was permissible to award compensation in installments or recurring compensation to meet the future medical expenses of the victim. After noticing the judgment of M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (as he then was) in P. Satyanarayana vs. I. Babu Rajendra Prasad , 1988 ACJ 88 (AP), the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Valiyakathodi Mohd. Koya vs. Ayyappankadu Ramamoorthi Mohan, 1991 ACJ 140 (Ker.), this Court observed: “In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, the Court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record. However, for such medical treatment, the Court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record. In the present case, it has been pointed out that for replacing the artificial leg every two to three years, the appellant would be required to have some sort of operation and also change the artificial leg. At that time, the estimated expenses for this were Rs. 18,000 and the High Court has awarded the said amount. For change of the artificial leg every two or three years no compensation is awarded. Considering this aspect, if Rs. One lakh is awarded as an additional compensation, the appellant would be in a position to meet the said expenses from the interest of the said amount.” After the aforesaid judgment, the cost of living as also the cost of artificial limbs and expenses likely to be incurred for periodical replacement of such limb has substantially increased. Therefore, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant for future treatment. If this amount is deposited in fixed deposit, the interest accruing on it will take care of the cost of artificial limb, fees of the doctor and other ancillary expenses.” He submits that since the injury which was caused in the accident was permanent and is being treated regularly, in the fact and circumstances of the present case the learned Claim Tribunal has rightly granted compensation towards loss of future income. 7. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record in the present memo of appeal as well as the lower court record. So far as establishment of accident as well as the fact that vehicle in question was under insurance cover of the appellant at the time of accident are concerned, there is no dispute between either of the parties. Only compensation for loss of future income which has been calculated as Rs. 50,000/- and also payment of 12% interest in case of failure in making payment, are issues before this court. So far as compensation amount towards loss of future income is concerned, the court is of the opinion that once loss of income was calculated in the light of Schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act, in normal course, compensation towards loss of future income was not required to be given. So far as compensation amount towards loss of future income is concerned, the court is of the opinion that once loss of income was calculated in the light of Schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act, in normal course, compensation towards loss of future income was not required to be given. However, in the peculiar fact and circumstances of the present case particularly the injury caused to the claimant as well as the meager amount directed to be paid under the head of loss of future income , the court is of the opinion that the judgment and award may not be interfered with. So far as grant of penal interest is concerned, after perusal of the impugned order it is not clear as to from which date interest at the rate of 12% was required to be paid. It appears that rate of 12% has been mentioned in the judgment and award without any significance. Moreover, Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly referred to Keshav Bahadur Case (Supra), which restricts from imposing such penal interest, and as such, it is clarified that in view of the judgment and award, a simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 1.7.2005 is required to be paid on the total compensation amount of Rs. 3,23,995/-. The payment in terms of the judgment and award is required to be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. Later on (8-04-2013) Since the appeal stands disposed of, the statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of present appeal is directed to be remitted back to the court below for its payment to the claimant.