JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, New India Assurance Company Limited as well as Mr. S. lodh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1. Despite due notice from this court, none appears for the remaining respondents. 2. This is an appeal by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, urging that (i) the fact that the injured suffered the injury from the purported road traffic accident on 08.06.2012 involving the two motorcycles bearing registration no. TR-01-G-7697 (Hero Honda) and TR-01-K-7463 (Bajaj Discover DTS-I) is not probable; (ii) the award, as determined by the Tribunal is exorbitantly high and (iii) withholding of the injured from the proceeding of the Tribunal has its consequential ramifications as to the disability. Hence, the judgment and award dated 25.07.2014 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 343 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court no. 4, West Tripura, Agartala is under challenge in this appeal. 3. For appreciating those grounds, the essential facts leading to this appeal may briefly be noted. On 08.06.2011 when the son of the respondent no. 1, namely, Rakesh Roy was going to his office namely Samsung Service Centre at Battala by riding his motorcycle bearing registration no. TR-01-G-7697 through the by-lane of Chittaranjan Club, Shibnanagar and when he reached near Gedu Miah Mosque, at that time another motor cycle bearing registration no. TR-01-K-7463 (Bajaj Discover DTS-I) coming from the opposite direction in an extremely high speed collided with the bike of the said injured. As a result of the said accident, Rakesh Roy sustained grievous injuries over his head. He was immediately shifted to the GBP hospital and on the next day i.e. on 09.06.2011 he was referred to SSKM/AMRI hospital, Kolkata. He was treated at AMRI hospital, Kolkata from 10.06.2011 to 12.06.2011. After returning from Kolkata, the condition of the injured deteriorated and he had to be admitted at GBP hospital again on 18.06.2011 and on the date, as stated, he was referred to SSKM/AMRI hospital, Kolkata and he was treated at AMRI hospital from 19.06.2011 to 08.09.2011. As the respondent no. 1 was out of money, he had to get his son discharged from that hospital on his request on 08.09.2011. The injured sustained head injury and the respondent no. 1 was unable to continue the treatment of his son at AMRI hospital, Kolkata. As the respondent no. 1 was out of money, he had to get his son discharged from that hospital on his request on 08.09.2011. The injured sustained head injury and the respondent no. 1 was unable to continue the treatment of his son at AMRI hospital, Kolkata. The injured now is unable to move, write and speak and became almost abnormal and lying on the bed and he lost his working capacity. The injured is under treatment of the local physician Dr. Jayanta Das and a full time nurse has been engaged to look after the injured. The injured is under constant neuro-therapy treatment by Dr. DK Rana since September, 2011 till filing of the claim case. The injured was to earn Rs.6,000/- per month and he was to earn further Rs. 4,000/- per month from tuition. Due to the accident, he became permanently disabled to the extent of 100% and as such, he claimed the compensation. 4. After recording the evidences, both oral and documentary, as led by the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 3, the impugned judgment and award has been passed. From the claimant, the following documents have been admitted in the evidence:- “The documents viz. certified copy of FIR, ejahar, seizure lists (6 sheets), marked as Exbt.1. Certified copy of injury report (2 sheets), marked as Exbt.2, certified copy of charge-sheet (5 sheets), marked as Exbt.3, original discharge certificate dated 19.6.2011, marked as Exbt.4, original referral certificate dated 18.6.2011, marked as Exbt.5, original discharge summary of AMRI hospital/advice on discharge (2 sheets), marked as Exbt.6, 81 nos. of cash memos for purchasing medicines and bill of Joy Ram Bhander, marked as Exbt.7, original prescriptions of AMRI hospitals (63 nos.), as Exbt.8, 161 nos of cash memos of Frank Ross Pharmacy, Kolkata, marked as Exbt. 9, 2 nos. of original cash memos of New Medical Supply Agency, marked as Exbt. 10, original first final bill (3 sheets), marked as Exbt. 11 and original second final bill statement of AMRI hospital (24 sheets), marked as Exbt. 12, original receipt vouchers of Neuro and Physiotherapy Centre (5 sheets), marked as Exbt. 13, original medical certificate of Dr. Jayanta Das (one sheet), marked as Exbt. 14, original income certificate, marked as Exbt. 15, original authorization letter, marked as Exbt. 16, Air tickets of Agartala to Kolkata dated 19.6.2011 (4 nos.) marked as Exbt. 12, original receipt vouchers of Neuro and Physiotherapy Centre (5 sheets), marked as Exbt. 13, original medical certificate of Dr. Jayanta Das (one sheet), marked as Exbt. 14, original income certificate, marked as Exbt. 15, original authorization letter, marked as Exbt. 16, Air tickets of Agartala to Kolkata dated 19.6.2011 (4 nos.) marked as Exbt. 17, boarding pass (4 sheets), marked as Exbt. 18, original admit card, marked as Exbt. 19, original bill of Tripura Bhavan (one sheet), marked as Exbt. 20, original disablement certificate, marked as Exbt. 21, original prescriptions of Dr. R.N. Bhattacharjee (2 sheets), marked as Exbt. 22, original diet chart (1 sheet) marked as Exbt. 23, one original cash memo, marked as Exbt. 24, two prescriptions of Dr. Jayanta Das, marked as Exbt. 25.” 5. One of the specialists, Dr. Dipti Bikash Roy, was examined for the claimant, as PW-2. Thereafter, the Tribunal, by the judgment dated 25.07.2014 delivered in Title Suit (MAC) 343 of 2013, has observed that from the prescription dated 22.09.2012 of Dr. RN Bhattacharya of AMRI hospital, Kolkata under whom the injured was treated, it appears that the injured was suffering from defuse axonal injury and the injured was suffering from spasticity of all four limbs. The head injury suffered by the injured in the said road traffic accident caused quadriplegia i.e. paralysis of four limbs. By the disability certificate, as issued by the District Disability Medical Board, it appears that the injured is 100% disabled. Thus, the loss of income has been determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,52,000/-. For pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- for keeping an attendant during the period of treatment Rs. 30,000/- and the transportation cost was Rs. 30,000/- as lump-sum have been awarded further. After considering the various medical records, the Tribunal has given the cost of treatment at Rs. 7,76,912/-. In addition thereto, Rs. 50,000/- for food and supplement during the period of treatment. Another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was given to the injured for keeping an attendant for the next five years. Since, the petitioner had to go to Kolkata twice on referral along with escort and the medical attendant, he was given a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on that count. Thus, the total amount, as compensation came to be Rs. 19,36,912/- payable with interest @8% per annum from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 27.08.2013. Since, the petitioner had to go to Kolkata twice on referral along with escort and the medical attendant, he was given a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on that count. Thus, the total amount, as compensation came to be Rs. 19,36,912/- payable with interest @8% per annum from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 27.08.2013. It has been further directed that if the sum of compensation is not paid within two months from the date of award, the said award shall carry the penal interest at 10%. It has also been directed that the appellant shall oblige the liability of payment, as the offending vehicle owned by the respondent no. 2 herein, was under valid insurance coverage. Out of the awarded sum, if it is deposited, 50% shall be remitted to the account of the injured directly and the rest 50% shall be kept in fixed deposit scheme in any nationalized bank for 5 years. The injured will not be allowed to any premature withdrawal without permission from the Tribunal. 6. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the story of the road traffic accident is not believable inasmuch as the FIR was filed on 15.03.2012 whereas the accident occurred on 08.06.2011. The FIR has been filed after 8 months though in the FIR, the respondent no. 1 has added an explanation that as the son was in a highly condition and they were all engaged in his treatment most of the time in Kolkata, they could not lodge the FIR in time. The police, as it is admitted by the parties, initially filed the final report, short of evidence, but on re-investigation they filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 3 under Sections 279/338 of the IPC (Exhibit-3) vide Charge-Sheet No. 84 of 2013 in connection with East Agartala PS Case No. 50 of 2012. Mr. Bhattacharji, further urged that the documents as introduced for the claimant are all manipulated documents. There is no reliable record or evidence to believe the road traffic accident, as alleged to have occurred. He has further submitted that this is the reason why the injured never appeared before this Court. Mr. Bhattacharji has further submitted that since this was a head-on-collusion, this court shall alternatively derive a finding that the accident occurred for contributory negligence of both the bikers meaning the injured and the respondent no. He has further submitted that this is the reason why the injured never appeared before this Court. Mr. Bhattacharji has further submitted that since this was a head-on-collusion, this court shall alternatively derive a finding that the accident occurred for contributory negligence of both the bikers meaning the injured and the respondent no. 3 and as such whatever the liability that may arise in the form of compensation, the appellant shall only be liable to pay 50% of it as the insurer of the other vehicle. Mr. Bhattacharji, has finally relied on a decision of this court in Sri Parimal Choudhury vs. Smt. Manti Das and Others [judgment and order dated 12.08.2015 passed in MAC APP. No. 94 of 2011] where it has been observed that: “8. The claimants relied upon one, Gouranga Das, P.W.3 who claim to be an eye witness to the accident and stated that he was travelling in the bus in question. In his examination in chief, he has only stated that the bus knocked down the two-wheeler in front of Governor House and both the riders of the motor cycle were injured. He has not stated who was at fault. In cross examination the witness stated that he did not know Parimal Choudhury. He also states that he did not know Dipankar Das or his family members. He also stated that he was never examined by the police in the case. According to him, he was asked to depose in the case of Dipankar Das but could not say who brought him to Court. How can reliance be placed on the testimony of a witness who claims that he does not know the parties and whose statement was never recorded by the police and who does not even know how the accident occurred? In fact, if the statement of this witness is accepted, he does not say that the bus driver was negligent. 9. The most important witness was Parimal Choudhury. He was the person who was driving the motor cycle and he could have best deposed how the accident took place. He was a party to the petition but choose not to appear in the witness box and, therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him. 9. The most important witness was Parimal Choudhury. He was the person who was driving the motor cycle and he could have best deposed how the accident took place. He was a party to the petition but choose not to appear in the witness box and, therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him. When a party who is in knowledge of certain facts does not appear in the court, a presumption can be drawn that he is avoided to appear in Court because he does not want to tell the truth. Even otherwise the FIR and the police documents relied upon the learned MACT clearly indicate that the accident was a result of negligence of both the drivers. ” Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has continued to submit that here also the injured was not adduced as the witness to state how the accident occurred and as such similar view may be taken by this court that the accident was result of negligence of both the bikers. 7. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the appellant had not examined the records properly or they have not properly scrutinized the medical records and the testimonies of the witnesses including the records beyond those as produced, in proof of the road traffic accident and the disability, as suffered by the injured. He has submitted that from the injury report (Exhibit-2) of the GBP hospital, it would be apparent that on 08.06.2011 at 11.53 am, the Medical Officer who attended the injured has given the following certificate: “H/O multiple injury due to RTA.” From the said report, it also appears that the doctor recorded that the patient was referred to SSKM hospital for further treatment. All the records of the treatment at GBP hospital and AMRI hospital including the cash memos, bills etc. have been produced for inspection by the Court. On due examination, the District Disability Medical Board, has observed as follows:- Disability Affected part of the body Diagnosis Disability (%) Locomotors Spine QUEDRIPLEGIA DUE TO HEAD INJURY 100 The District Disability Medical Board has issued the certificate in this regard on 12.02.2014 (Exhibit 21). Mr. Lodh had further submitted that the respondent no. 3 has valid driving license as well the injured had the valid driving license on the date of the accident. 8. Mr. Lodh had further submitted that the respondent no. 3 has valid driving license as well the injured had the valid driving license on the date of the accident. 8. Having regard to the submissions, made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well on scrutiny of the records, this court finds that initially the injured could speak when he was in GBP hospital on 08.06.2013. Based thereon, the respondent no. 1 (PW-1) stated that the biker of the Bajaj Discover DTS-I dashed him by negligently driving the bike and in terms thereof he filed the complaint in the police station and the police found prima facie case in the allegation. There is no cross-examination by the appellant to confront that statement. However, there was a suggestion that there was no road traffic accident. 9. PW-2, Dr. Dipti Bikash Roy, has categorically stated that before giving the disability certificate, he, as a locomotors specialist has thoroughly checked the history of treatment and also physically inspected and thereafter his opinion was shared with other Board members and accordingly, the disability certificate was issued. 10. From the treatment summary of the injured, it appears that the petitioner was put on ventilation from which gradual weaning was done. It has also been observed that the injured was on PEG feeding, his GCS is E4 V2 and M3 and he required good nursing and care. For the purpose of assessing the disability, the injured was examined on 12.02.2014 and he was certified that he was suffering from Quadriplegia due to the head injury. 11. The documents, as admitted in the evidence are so eloquent, thus much better for the purpose of exploring the truth. There cannot be any amount of confusion as to the road traffic accident from which the injured suffered such injuries as narrated before completely crippling him from leading a normal life. 12. The ground, as urged, that since it was a head-on-collusion, it must be a result of the contributory negligence. It is well settled that unless the evidence is led by the party in the proceeding claiming the accident to be from the contributory negligence, he shall invariably lead cogent evidence but in this case, there is no such evidence and the appellant did not adduce any evidence, to say the least of contributory negligence and hence, the plea of contributory negligence stands rejected. 13. 13. The other ground, as urged is that the respondent No. 1 does not have the legal standing to make the claim for the injured. Here it is not a question of minor or mentally challenged person. Section 166(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly provides that the injured person by authorization can file the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act through an agent. It is not disputed that respondent no. 1 is the father of the injured, Rakesh Roy and he has authorized the respondent No. 1 to file the said claim petition. Such authorization is on record. As such, the said ground does not hold any substance at all. 14. The last ground that has been urged by the appellant is that the award is exorbitantly high. This court, on scrutiny on every part of the record finds that the medical expenses and expenses for travelling are justifiably given. The other component of the compensation, which are non-pecuniary in nature are correctly awarded leaving any scope for interference. Even on proper consideration of the disability certificate, loss of future income has been restricted to five years, in addition to what the injured has suffered during his treatment. The sum, as given for attendant and the future attendant is not unreasonable and as such this Court will not interfere with the award except the penal interest which this Court had on numerous occasions observed that within the authority of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no penal interest can be awarded by the tribunal. As a result, the award, as to the penal interest, stands quashed. 15. The remaining part of the award and the mode of payment, in the event of the deposit, provided by the appellant, are affirmed by this Court. As this court has rejected the plea of contributory negligence, it is made clear that it is the appellant and the appellant alone who shall satisfy the award. The remaining part of the award shall be satisfied within a period of 2(two) months from today, if not paid already. If any amount has been paid earlier that shall be deducted from the award. 16. As such, the appeal is allowed partly in terms of the above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.