ORDER : 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 08-07-2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S. (MAC) 276 of 2006 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs.11,48,210/- in favour of the petitioner under the following heads:- Loss of Income Rs. 9,73,210/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,70,000/- Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.11,48,210/- 2. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it is firstly urged that the deceased was travelling in a vehicle which was being used as an ambulance and since the vehicle was not registered as an ambulance, it was being used contrary to the conditions of the permit and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable. Secondly, it is urged that the amount of compensation awarded is highly excessive. 3. Before dealing with the other issues, I would like to point out that this is again a case which has not been properly instituted before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The title of the claim petition reads as follows:- “Smt. Sabita Biswas, W/o. Sri Dulal Biswas, of Magur Charra, P.S. Manu Bazar, Dist. South Tripura. At present residing at C/o. Lt. Devi Prasad Roy, P.O. Usha Bazar, Vill. Chinahani (Usha Bazar), P.S. Airport, Dist. West Tripura Claimant-Petitioner.” 4. In the claim petition, it is alleged that the husband of Smt. Sabita Biswas, i.e. Dulal Biswas has suffered grievous injury and, therefore she is filing the petition. This is highly irregular. Under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act), a claim petition can be filed either by the injured or by the owner of the property or where death has resulted from the accident by any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 permits an agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to file an application. However, an agent can be duly authorised only by a power of attorney executed on behalf of the said agent. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no written document on record to show that Dulal Biswas had authorised his wife to file a petition on his behalf. 5. It may be true that Sri Dulal Biswas is unable to attend Court. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no written document on record to show that Dulal Biswas had authorised his wife to file a petition on his behalf. 5. It may be true that Sri Dulal Biswas is unable to attend Court. It may also be true that he is suffering from 90% disability. However, either there should have been a power of attorney on his behalf or in favour of his wife permitting her to file the petition and appear on his behalf. There must be a proper authorization and no claim petition should be entertained unless there is a proper authorization. However, since this claim petition was filed in the year 2006 more than 8 years back and the factum of the accident is not disputed, I proceed to treat this claim petition as well as the appeal to be on behalf of and against Sri Dulal Biswas, S/O. Sudhir Ch. Biswas, C/O. Lt. Devi Prasad Roy, P.O. Usha Bazar, Vill. Chinaihani (Usha Bazar), P.S. Airport, District-West Tripura. The claimant Smt. Sabita Biswas will not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever. 6. This Court would like to make it clear that even in cases of minors, the claim petition has to be filed in the name of the minor. It may be filed through the next friend or natural guardian but the claimant has to be the minor. Similarly in cases where the injured is under a disability, such as where he is a lunatic or cannot for any other reasons file the claim petition himself, then also the claim petition even if filed by an authorised representative, has to be filed in the name of the person claiming the compensation though it may be filed by and through the person who has been appointed as the authorised person. 7. In petition under the M.V. Act, sometimes very large sums of money are awarded in favour of the claimants. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the claim petition has been properly filed on behalf of the claimant by the person who is actually either entitled to file the claim petition himself or is duly authorised to file the claim petition. Even at the time of release of the amount, it must be ensured that the amount is paid to the person to whom it is actually due under section 166 of the M.V. Act. Even at the time of release of the amount, it must be ensured that the amount is paid to the person to whom it is actually due under section 166 of the M.V. Act. 8. The learned Tribunal has granted compensation as detailed hereinabove without at all understanding what are the parameters for grant of compensation. 9. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 paisa. 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. vs. 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.” 12. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward vs. 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.” 13. 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. 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. 14. 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. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given.” 15. In Perry vs. 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.” 16. In Phillips vs. 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. 17. Mc Gregor 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.” 18. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. 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.” 19. In R.D. Hattangadi vs. 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. 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.” 20. In Rajkumar vs. 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 injured, 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.” 21. In Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014)3 SCC 210 , the Apex Court granted compensation under the heads of medical expenses, future treatment, pain and suffering, cost of attendance etc. 22. In Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014)3 SCC 210 , the Apex Court granted compensation under the heads of medical expenses, future treatment, pain and suffering, cost of attendance etc. 22. I now proceed to determine the just compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act by applying the aforesaid principles. 23. The claimant has placed on record a bill of the Apollo Gleneagles Hospital which shows that an amount of Rs.1,38,944.99 paisa was spent at Kolkata itself. In addition thereto, the claimant has placed on record vouchers on medicines for a sum of Rs.8,395/-. The total amount, therefore, works out to Rs.1,47,340/-. The claimant must have spent a lot of amount at the stage of initial treatment at Agartala and other places for which accounts may not have been kept. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment, I assess the expenses on medicines alone at Rs.1,75,000/- till the time of filing of the claim petition. The petitioner is suffering from quadriplegia which means he shall be bedridden for the rest of his life. He will in all probability suffer from bedsores. He will require to be treated throughout his life. Though there is no positive evidence in this behalf, I estimate the future medical expenses at Rs.50,000/-. 24. The claimant has also produced on record air tickets of the value of Rs.3,270/-. The claimant went with two escorts to Kolkata and air fare for these three escorts and other transportation has to be factored in. Therefore, by estimation the transportation charges are assessed at Rs.30,000/-. 25. The claimant was hospitalized in Agartala from 30-06-2005 to 02-07-2005 and thereafter from 11-07-2005 to 26-08-2005. Therefore, his total period of hospitalization in Agartala works out to 50 days. Even at Agartala, two attendants would have been required round the clock. The occurrence is of the year 2005 and I assess the cost of one attendant at Agartala at Rs.250/- per day or Rs.500/- per day for two attendants and accordingly allowed Rs.25,000/- for cost of attendants at Agartala. In Kolkata, the claimant remained hospitalized from 02-07-2005 to 11-07-2005, i.e. for 9 days. Including the period of transport, it would come to 10 days. At Kolkata, I assess the cost of attendants at Rs.1,000/- per day because they also had to arrange for their board and lodging at Kolkata. In Kolkata, the claimant remained hospitalized from 02-07-2005 to 11-07-2005, i.e. for 9 days. Including the period of transport, it would come to 10 days. At Kolkata, I assess the cost of attendants at Rs.1,000/- per day because they also had to arrange for their board and lodging at Kolkata. Consequently, Rs.10,000/- is awarded on account of charges of the attendants at Kolkata. The claimant as mentioned above is totally disabled. He has to be even assisted to answer the call of nature. He cannot do anything. Therefore, some attendant will be required to look after him. That attendant may not be a full time attendant and even the family members may attend to the patient but even their gratuitous service has to be compensated by the tortfeasor. On a very conservative basis, the cost of attendants is taken at Rs.1,500/- a month or Rs.18,000/- per year and multiplier of 11 is applied and the compensation under this head comes to Rs.1,98,000/-. 26. Now, comes the issue with regard to assessment of compensation payable to the claimant injured on account of loss of income. What the learned Tribunal has done is taken the whole salary of the injured, applied a multiplier of 11 and awarded 90% of that to the claimant. No doubt, the claimant has suffered a very serious injury. He is suffering from quadriplegia which means all his four limbs have become affected and the disability is 90%. The learned Tribunal totally lost sight of the fact that the injured was a Government Servant. Under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, his services could not have been terminated and no adverse order could have been passed against him with regard to his promotion etc. also because under the provisions of Section 47 of this Act, the Government cannot discriminate against a person who has suffered injury and has thereafter become immobilized to do work. Section 47 of the Act reads as follows:- “47. also because under the provisions of Section 47 of this Act, the Government cannot discriminate against a person who has suffered injury and has thereafter become immobilized to do work. Section 47 of the Act reads as follows:- “47. Non-discrimination in Government employments.—(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.” 27. This Court has interpreted this provision in The Airport Authority of India & another vs. Sri Swapan Kumar Dey, W.A. 08 of 2014 which reads as follows:- “11. Sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act clearly lays down that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. Therefore, even if a person becomes totally disabled and is unable to perform any duty, the employer is statutorily prohibited from dispensing with the services of such employee. Not only that, the employer is also prohibited from reducing the rank of the employee. The intention of the legislature is very clear that a person who suffers disability during service should not be put at any disadvantage and he should continue in the same position. Under sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act, such a disabled person cannot even be denied promotion, if otherwise due to him, just because he is disabled and unable to perform his duties. 12. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 47 only empowers the employer to transfer or shift the employee from one post to the other where he can work despite his disability. 12. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 47 only empowers the employer to transfer or shift the employee from one post to the other where he can work despite his disability. Therefore, if an employee due to the disability is unable to perform the duties which he was performing prior to the suffering of his disability, the employer can post him at a job where he can work despite his disability. The pay, allowances and emoluments of the employee cannot be adversely affected even if the job be of a different nature.” 28. In the present case, the employer took no steps to terminate the employment of the petitioner but the petitioner himself sought voluntary retirement. This was a voluntary act of the petitioner which may have been actuated by the injury suffered by him but which it was not necessary to do. Therefore, he cannot get wages which he has voluntary given up. In this regard, it may also be mentioned that at the time of voluntary retirement, a claimant gets a lot of retiral benefits. 29. Having held so, the fact remains that after 5 years, the claimant would have retired from service and after retirement if he was an able bodied man, he could have done some work at least. He could have even worked as a manual labourer if nothing else and, therefore, from the age of 58 years onwards he would be entitled to some compensation but this compensation is not relatable to the salary which he was drawing but with regard to the wages which he could have earned at the time of his retirement. Taking a conservative view of the matter, the claimant would have earned at least Rs.5,000/- per month and his disability is 100% as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Therefore, the disability is assessed at Rs.60,000/- per year and multiplier of 9 is applicable which means compensation on loss of income comes to Rs.5,40,000/-. 30. Now coming to the non-pecuniary damages. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- only to a patient who has become a vegetable for the rest of his life. His existence is a vegetable existence where he is dependent on his family members to meet all or any of his needs. He is totally dependent on the family members for even doing the basic necessities. His life is not worth living. His existence is a vegetable existence where he is dependent on his family members to meet all or any of his needs. He is totally dependent on the family members for even doing the basic necessities. His life is not worth living. One cannot even imagine the pain and suffering that he will undergo throughout his life. To award Rs.5,000/- is to make a mockery of the law and to rub salt into the wounds of such a seriously injured patient. Therefore, I award Rs.2,00,000/- on account of pain and suffering. 31. Lastly, coming to the issue of loss of amenities of life and future discomfort in life. Dulal Biswas is virtually bedridden for the rest of his life. He cannot move. He has to be assisted to answer the call of nature. He cannot derive the pleasures which a normal human being can. He cannot have sex with his wife. He cannot physically express love and affection to anybody and his life is bound to one room in the house. He cannot visit a temple without being taken in a stretcher or a wheelchair there. No amount of money is sufficient to compensate such suffering but the law enjoins upon the Courts to award just compensation. In my view, the compensation for this should be at least Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs.(1,75,000 + 50,000 + 30,000 + 25,000 + 10,000 + 1,98,000 + 5,40,000 + 2,00,000 + 3,00,000) = Rs.15,28,000/- (rupees fifteen lakh twenty eight thousand). In case, the injured had not been a Government Servant but a private employee, or a businessman who had lost his job, then the compensation could have been much much higher. 32. As far as the second point is concerned, the argument raised is without any basis whatsoever. The facts as alleged are that the injured and his wife had gone to visit their grown up daughter. A neighbour of the daughter fell seriously ill and this neighbour was being taken to the hospital in the Maruti van in question. The injured person, like a good Samaritan wanting to help his neighbours accompanied them in the van. Unfortunately, on the way they met with an accident. The vehicle was not being used as an ambulance. Just because a patient was being carried in the vehicle does not make it an ambulance. The injured person, like a good Samaritan wanting to help his neighbours accompanied them in the van. Unfortunately, on the way they met with an accident. The vehicle was not being used as an ambulance. Just because a patient was being carried in the vehicle does not make it an ambulance. If this meaning is given, then no person will give a lift to an injured bystander and carry him to a hospital. The law must be given a progressive meaning and any interpretation to the law must be such that it furthers the cause of justice and camaraderie between fellow human beings and any interpretation of the law which creates hurdles in the way of giving succour to injured persons cannot be accepted. The vehicle in question was a private vehicle covered by a package policy. It was not being used as an ambulance and, therefore, this prayer is rejected. 33. Even though there is no appeal by the claimant, in view of the special facts and circumstances of this case, especially the fact that the claim had been filed by the wife who had no authority to do so and in view of the fact that this Court must award just compensation, I proceed to enhance the amount even in the absence of filing of the appeal. 34. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.11,48,210/- to Rs.15,28,000/-, i.e. by Rs.3,79,790/-. On the amount of compensation so awarded, the claimant Sri Dulal Biswas shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the awarded amount. The Insurance Company has not satisfied the award of the Tribunal and, therefore, it is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest in the Registry of this Court within 4 (four) months from today. The Insurance Company may while depositing the amount adjust the amount, if any, paid/deposited by it during the course of the trial or appeal. 35. On the amount being deposited, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be released immediately in favour of the claimant. The amount of interest accruing on the balance amount shall be remitted to the claimant every year on 1st July. 35. On the amount being deposited, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be released immediately in favour of the claimant. The amount of interest accruing on the balance amount shall be remitted to the claimant every year on 1st July. Out of the deposited amount, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be released in favour of the claimant till the entire amount is paid to the claimant. This order has been passed because the claimant is suffering from 100% disability and he will require money for the rest of his life and as such, it is necessary to ensure that all the money is not squandered away. 36. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 37. Send down the lower court records forthwith. 38. Copy of this judgment shall be circulated to all the Judicial Officers in the State.