JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, United India Insurance Company Ltd. as well as Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2 in the hearing despite due notice from this court. 2. By means of this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. has raised 3(three) grounds of objection for questioning the judgment and award dated 24.05.2013 in T.S. (MAC) No. 471/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 5, West Tripura, Agartala, which are as under: (i) The motor accident, based on which the claim has been raised, is fake and that is the reason why the information for the first time was lodged after three months of the alleged road traffic accident. (ii) Without any tenable basis, the Tribunal has determined the disability of the injured at 100%, even though according to the District Disability Board, West Tripura the injured suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85%. (iii) The monthly income of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,000 is wholly unreasonable and unjustified. 3. Mr. S. Datta Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised no dispute as to the correctness of the finding in respect of the insurance coverage of the vehicle [TATA Truck] bearing registration No. TR-01-1830. He has submitted further that the Tribunal did not appreciate the materials placed before it in their context and thus has landed in the findings which are highly questionable in respect of the extent of the disablement, the consequential loss of income, the genuineness of the road traffic accident and the monthly income of the injured. 4. There is no dispute that the claim petition has been filed in respect of a road traffic accident occurred on 07.07.2011 when the son of the claimant, namely Binit Roy, aged about 5 years was walking along the Amtali-Khayerpur bypass. The said vehicle [TATA Truck] coming from behind at high speed dashed Binit. The vehicle ran over his right leg causing severe injury. He was rushed to the GBP Hospital, Agartala and admitted there. Considering the seriousness of his injuries, Binit was referred to the AMRI Hospital, Kolkata on 08.07.2011 and on the very same day his right leg was amputated. The vehicle ran over his right leg causing severe injury. He was rushed to the GBP Hospital, Agartala and admitted there. Considering the seriousness of his injuries, Binit was referred to the AMRI Hospital, Kolkata on 08.07.2011 and on the very same day his right leg was amputated. Thereafter also, the medical care continued at Kolkata. Finally the District Disability Board, West Tripura, has declared his disablement to the extent of 85%. 5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the assumed income of the injured at Rs. 6,000 per month and adding therewith the other components, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,96,000 and with that an additional sum of Rs. 50,000 for expenses of artificial limb, Rs. 40,000 for pain and sufferings and another Rs. 40,000 for mental shock and agony was given. Further, for loss of many amenities of life the injured was given another sum of Rs. 1,00,000. As a result, the total compensation as awarded by the impugned judgment and award dated 24.05.2013 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 471/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 5 came to be Rs. 17,42,501. The said amount has been directed to be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 15.09.2011 till realisation. It has been directed by the Tribunal that out of the awarded sum, Rs. 12,00,000 has to be deposited in the name of the injured in a bank as stipulated in the judgment and that would be maintained in the said fixed deposit till he attained the age of majority. It has been also directed that the said award shall be paid by the appellant within 30(thirty) days from the date of the judgment and award. 6. From the other side, Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No. 1, having referred to a decision of the apex court in V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another, (2014) 11 SCC 178 , has submitted that, in that case a boy aged 16 years suffered 50% disablement and his monthly income was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,000. But the apex court on consideration of his merit in his educational life had enhanced the monthly income to Rs. 10,000 and thereafter provided the other components of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The total award was assessed at Rs. 6,000. But the apex court on consideration of his merit in his educational life had enhanced the monthly income to Rs. 10,000 and thereafter provided the other components of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The total award was assessed at Rs. 30,93,000 with interest @ 9% per annum. The said amount was decided on the basis of the parameters as laid down in MCD vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn., (2011) 14 SCC 481 . Mr. Roy, learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing wrong in assessing Rs. 6,000 as the monthly income as the value of the money is everyday getting reduced. He has urged that there may be no interference in the assessment made by the Tribunal. However, he has not made any submission on the other two points. But he has contended that the best authority is the District Disability Board to assess the permanent disability suffered by a person. They have certified that the injured suffered 85% permanent disability and the right leg had been amputated from above knee and in future the boy could not be able to live an enjoyable life and in every sphere of life he would face disadvantages. The accident has snatched from him all the amenities and enjoyment of normal life. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after scanning the records placed before this court, it appeared that based on the information lodged by the claimant on 22.11.2011, whereas the accident took place on 07.07.2011, East Agartala P.S. Case No. 225/2011 under Sections 279/338 of the IPC was registered and after the investigation was complete, the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was furnished sending the driver of the said vehicle to face the trial under Sections 279/338 of the IPC and the said police report has been admitted in the evidence as Exbt.1 series. As such, it cannot be on the face of this record held that there was no accident or the accident as claimed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 is fake. The other question that has been raised by Mr. S.D. Choudhury, learned counsel requires serious consideration, as to whether the disability suffered by the injured Binit Roy as assessed by the District Disability Board at 85% is the functional disability to the extent of 100%. The other question that has been raised by Mr. S.D. Choudhury, learned counsel requires serious consideration, as to whether the disability suffered by the injured Binit Roy as assessed by the District Disability Board at 85% is the functional disability to the extent of 100%. For arriving such inference, no support from the expert has been taken by the Tribunal. As a result, according to this court, it suffers from absence of cogent evidence. It was the duty of the Tribunal to ask for appearance of a medical expert to find out the actual functional disability. From a keen perusal of the disability certificate, it appears that the disability as determined is reviewable after 5(five) years. 8. Be that as it may, having confronted with such situation, this court having the limited evidentiary material before it, has to exercise its prudence, that of an ordinary man, as to how far the functionality of the injured has been lost. The functionality, no doubt, for losing one leg has been substantially lost and as such the functional disability be asserted at 80% not 100% as decided by the Tribunal. The other question that has been raised is that whether the notional income of a boy of 5 years can be determined at Rs. 6,000 or not. The decision of the apex court as relied by Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent is distinguishable as in that case the boy who suffered 50% disablement was a meritorious boy of 16 years of age and he was fully grown up. But in this case the boy is of 5 years of age. In view of this court, the monthly income having considered the deflationary effects may be considered at Rs. 4,000 per month. 9. Having held so, it is incumbent upon this court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act to determine the just compensation as would be payable to the injured who suffered disability to the extent of 85% as determined by the District Disability Board. The Tribunal has assessed the cost of the treatment which is not under challenge in this appeal and as such that amount can be adopted by this court, which comes to Rs. 2,16,501. Now the loss of income is required to be re-determined. Taking the loss of income at Rs. 4,000 per month, the annual loss of income will be Rs. 48,000. 2,16,501. Now the loss of income is required to be re-determined. Taking the loss of income at Rs. 4,000 per month, the annual loss of income will be Rs. 48,000. Thus, the total loss of income by using multiplier ‘18’ comes to Rs. 8,64,000 and for restoration of functionality by artificial limb another sum of Rs. 1,00,000 be added. In view of the decision of the apex court in Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 10 SCC 683 , for loss of pain and sufferings Rs. 1,50,000 is awarded. For loss of amenities as the injured will never be able to live a normal life and he would be deprived of other amenities of life, a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000 is awarded. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 15,30,501. The said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made from 15.11.2011 when the claim petition was filed. Out of the said sum, Rs. 8,00,000 (rupees eight lacs.) be maintained in the fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till the injured attained majority. It is to be noted that since the injured has suffered 80% functional disability, no amount is to be deducted from his notional income. 10. Since, Mr. Datta Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that the appellant- insurance Company has already deposited the award in terms of the impugned judgment and award, the Registry shall make the disbursement according to what has been observed by this order. If it is found that the insurance company had deposited more amount than what they are required to deposit, the difference be paid to them following the standard procedure. If any amount is maintained in the fixed deposit, the Registry shall release the amount required for payment to the claimant and the rest may be maintained in the fixed deposit in terms of this order. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.