JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- This appeal for enhancement of compensation by the claimant is directed against the judgment dated 20.04.2007 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 274 of 2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,12,000/- to the claimant under the following heads: Since the only dispute raised in this appeal is with regard to the quantum it is not necessary to discuss the other evidence. It would suffice to state that the claimant suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving commander jeep bearing No. TR-01-A-3688 and vehicle No. TR-01-B-1764 which took place on 21.10.2003. One of the vehicles is insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the other with the United India Insurance Company Limited. The learned Tribunal held that both the insurers are liable to pay the compensation. 2. The facts proved on record are that the claimant after suffering injury was taken to the GBP hospital, Agartala, where he was admitted on 21.10.2003 and remained there till 08.11.2003. The discharge certificate which has been proved on record shows that he was suffering from a trauma of the head which was febrile. He was thereafter referred for treatment at S.S.K.M. hospital, Kolkata. According to the claimant he could not get place in the S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata and therefore went to the A.M.R.I. hospital in Kolkata. The learned Tribunal held that since the claimant of his own accord had gone to a private hospital he could only be awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the entire treatment and he also awarded him Rs. 30,000/- for future medical expenses. 3. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. 4. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. 4. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few. 5. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent: Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards. 6. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards. 6. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good. 7. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. 8. In the case of Mediana, (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held: Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given. 9. In Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest held thus: "To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment." 10. In Phillips versus Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: "You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure". The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing", should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. 11. McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. 11. McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life. 12. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held: "The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales." 13. In R.D. Hattangadi versus Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), speaking about the heads of compensation, the Apex Court held thus: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they shall include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, un or sit; (iii) damages for loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 14. In Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. 6. 14. In Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been inured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 15. The learned Tribunal has not given any reasons while making an award of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head of hospitalization, continuity of treatment and future inconvenience and suffering. A Court must give reasons for awarding compensation under each and every head. I, therefore, now proceed to assess the compensation under each head,-- 1. Pecuniary Losses:--(i) Medical treatment: The evidence on record shows that the claimant was admitted in hospital at Agartala from 21st October, 2003 to 08.11.2003. He was referred to the hospital at Kolkata where he remained admitted from 08.11.2003 to 23.12.2003. Thereafter he has been visiting many doctors. Other documents have been placed on record that even in the year 2004-05, the claimant was treated at Kolkata. However, I am not taking that treatment into consideration while assessing the compensation because from the record it is apparent that the claimant was prior to the accident suffering from some certain illness, such as discharge from the ear since his childhood and he was also suffering from insomnia and nasal obstruction much before the accident. However, I am not taking that treatment into consideration while assessing the compensation because from the record it is apparent that the claimant was prior to the accident suffering from some certain illness, such as discharge from the ear since his childhood and he was also suffering from insomnia and nasal obstruction much before the accident. These treatments relate to these diseases, and therefore, have no concern with the accident. During the accident, the claimant suffered a head injury and due to the head injury he suffered an attack of meningitis and it has been proved on record that this meningitis was a result of the injuries received in the accident. Therefore, the compensation has to be assessed only on this count. The claimant has not placed on record any documents with regard to the expenses at Agartala. He has only placed on record the cash memos and bills of A.M.R.I. hospital, Kolkata. These cash memos and bills which have been placed and proved on record themselves alone total Rs. 1,99,612/-. Therefore, in Kolkata alone the claimant spent atleast Rs. 2,00,000/- on his hospitalization. Keeping in view the nature of expenses in Kolkata, it would not be unreasonable to presume that the claimant must have spent atleast Rs. 20,000/- to 30,000/- in Agartala also. In addition thereto, the claimant even after his discharge from the hospital at Kolkata was required to undergo further follow-up treatment, and therefore, he is awarded another sum of Rs. 25,000/- for future medical treatment. The total amount awarded under the head of medical treatment alone is Rs. 2,50,000/-. (ii) Attendant charges: The claimant has not been awarded any amount for attendant charges. The claimant remained in hospital at Agartala from 21.10.2003 to 08.11.2003 i.e. for 17 days. During this period he would have required attendants around the clock. Even if the cost of one attendant in the year 2003 is taken at Rs. 150/- per day, the cost of two attendants works out to Rs. 300/- per day and the cost of attendants for 17 days at Agartala works out to Rs. 5,100/-. The claimant was thereafter admitted in Kolkata on 08.11.2003 and discharged on 23.12.2003. He however had to remain in Kolkata for another one month because of the OPD treatment required in Kolkata itself. He required attendants during this period also. The cost of attendants is therefore taken for two months in Kolkata. 5,100/-. The claimant was thereafter admitted in Kolkata on 08.11.2003 and discharged on 23.12.2003. He however had to remain in Kolkata for another one month because of the OPD treatment required in Kolkata itself. He required attendants during this period also. The cost of attendants is therefore taken for two months in Kolkata. In Kolkata the claimant would have had to arrange for the boarding and lodging for his attendants also and the cost of each attendant is calculated at Rs. 500/- per day and the cost of two attendants at Rs. 1,000/- per day and for 60 days the same works out to Rs. 60,000/-. The cost of attendants is therefore assessed at Rs. 65,100/- which is rounded off to Rs. 65,000/-. (iii) Transportation charges: The claimant travelled from Agartala to Kolkata and back from Kolkata to Agartala. The order by which he was referred to Kolkata itself shows that the claimant was directed to travel in a lying position. The claimant went along with two attendants to Kolkata and cost of this air fare of these two attendants as well as the claimant proved on record to be about Rs. 19,000/- and odd, and therefore, Rs. 20,000/- is awarded as transportation charges. (iv) Actual loss of income: According to the claimant, he could not work for more than a year but the learned Tribunal has awarded him only compensation for loss of income for 4 (four) months by assessing his monthly income at Rs. 8,000/- per month. From the material on record, which I have discussed above, it is apparent that the claimant from 21.10.2003 was admitted in hospital till 23.12.2003 i.e. over a period of two months, thereafter he had to stay in Kolkata for quite a long time and keeping in view the nature of the injuries it would not be unreasonable to hold that he could not have worked for atleast eight months. He is accordingly awarded Rs. 64,000/- for loss of income. 2. Non- Pecuniary Damages:-The claimant remained in hospital for two months. He had to undergo a lot of pain and suffering during this period and he is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering. He is accordingly awarded Rs. 64,000/- for loss of income. 2. Non- Pecuniary Damages:-The claimant remained in hospital for two months. He had to undergo a lot of pain and suffering during this period and he is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering. As far as the award of damages for loss of amenities in life and future discomfort is concerned, at the outset it may be noted that the claimant has not placed any disability certificate on record. He has however examined one doctor (PW 2) Dr. Shyamal Roy, who is a practitioner in general medicine and according to him the claimant will face problems and will not be able to recover for long time. I am unable to accept this statement of Dr. Roy at face value because he was not the doctor who treated the claimant initially. He is not a neuro surgeon or a neurologist. He is a general practitioner in medicine. No doubt he is a post graduate but he is not an expert in the field in which the claimant is suffering a problem. I am also not relying upon his statement because he is a private doctor not authorized to issue disability certificate. His statement therefore has to be scrutinized with great care and caution. This doctor did not produce any record with regard to the patient being brought to him; he produced no record with regard to the advice given. Even a private doctor is under law required to maintain record of the patients in his register, the disease which he diagnosed and the medicines prescribed. This is contemporaneous record which has not been produced in court, and therefore, I am not relying upon the statement of the doctor. Having held so, the fact remains, that the claimant suffered an injury in the brain. Brain injuries may or may not fully recover and it cannot be said with certainty that the patient is fully recovered Therefore, I award him Rs. 50,000/- for future discomfort. As far as future loss of income is concerned, I find no loss of income. Therefore, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs. 6,61,000/-. 16. Brain injuries may or may not fully recover and it cannot be said with certainty that the patient is fully recovered Therefore, I award him Rs. 50,000/- for future discomfort. As far as future loss of income is concerned, I find no loss of income. Therefore, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs. 6,61,000/-. 16. I am constrained to observe time and again that the learned Tribunals in the State of Tripura are directing that in case the awarded amount is deposited within a particular period it will carry one rate of interest and if it is not deposited within that particular period it will carry a higher rate of interest i.e. penal interest. The Motor Vehicles Act does not empower the Tribunal to pass any such order. Section 171of the Motor Vehicles Act which relates to award of interest reads as follows: 171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.- Where any claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. 17. A bare reading of this provision shows that what the Tribunal is entitled to award, in addition to the amount of compensation, is simple interest at such rate as he may specify from a date not earlier than the date of making of the claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal can only award interest, at best from the date of filing of the claim petition. The interest must be simple interest and there must be one rate of interest. The Motor Vehicles Act does not empower the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to execute the awards. The Tribunal cannot don the role of Executing Courts and pass orders for payment of penal interest when there is no such power to award penalty vested in them by law. Penal interest or penalty can only be levied by any authority if it is specifically empowered under law to award penalty. If there is no such power vested in it, the Tribunal cannot award penal interest. 18. The award should be reasonable and in consonance with the prevailing rate of interest in the banks. Penal interest or penalty can only be levied by any authority if it is specifically empowered under law to award penalty. If there is no such power vested in it, the Tribunal cannot award penal interest. 18. The award should be reasonable and in consonance with the prevailing rate of interest in the banks. In the present case since the accident occurred long time back, interest shall be @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit/payment of the same. The award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and is enhanced from Rs. 4,12,000/- to Rs. 6,61,000/- along with interest, as aforesaid. 19. The insurance company has already satisfied the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in the Registry of this Court within four months from today. The appeal is thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Send back the LCRs forthwith.