JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A De, the learned counsel for the claimant appellant. Also heard Mr. D Deb, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent insurance company. No representation from the respondent No.1 despite proper service of notice upon him. 2. Dissatisfied with the award, dated 07-9-2011, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Court No.3), West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit(M.A.C) No.241/2007, awarding Rs.1,15,450/-, the claimant appellant is preferring this appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount to Rs.20,34,550/-. 3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 13-9-2006 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant on his return from Madhupur Bazar by a bicycle along the Agartala-Kamalasagar Road, he was knocked down by one motorcycle bearing No.TC-A-9371; this caused serious injuries on his person. He was brought to Madhupur Government Hospital, but was referred to G. B. P Hospital, Agartala for better treatment. He was admitted to G. B. P Hospital, Agartala on 13-9-2006 and was discharged on 21-9-2006 with the instruction to attend Dental Clinic of G. B. P Hospital which he attended on 21-9-2006, and was given the treatment till 25-9-2006. The appellant thereafter went to Kolkata where an operation was done on 01-10-2006 on his mandible zone. He also attended Shree Gobindbhai Pattel Eye Hospital under the management of SUSRUT Eye Foundation and Research Centre, Kolkata whereafter he returned to Agartala on 22-10-2006. Prior to that accident, according to the appellant, he was carrying on the occupation of the rubber plantation and manufacturing of rubber sheets etc. with his own hands with the assistance of the Rubber Board and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month from his rubber plantation. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider. The claim petition case was contested by owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company by filing their respective written statements by claiming, inter alia, that the claim was exorbitant and was not admissible. 4. In the course of trial, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and submitted a number of documents to substantiate his claim. The factum of accident and the disability sustained by the appellant have not been disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the impugned award awarding Rs.15,000/- for pain, suffering and amenities of life. 4. In the course of trial, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and submitted a number of documents to substantiate his claim. The factum of accident and the disability sustained by the appellant have not been disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the impugned award awarding Rs.15,000/- for pain, suffering and amenities of life. The Tribunal found the appellant to be 40 years of age at the time of the incident and assessed his income at Rs.4,000/- per month. As he was under treatment at G.B. P Hospital from 13-9-2006 to 21-9-2006 the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- as loss of his income following his injuries. The Tribunal found that the appellant had his treatment at Sri Sankaradeva Netralaya, Guwahati, for his eye problem and, accordingly, awarded Rs.11,450/- for purchase of medicines and undergoing tests in the two aforesaid hospitals. 5. The appellant exhibited a certificate of disability issued by the District Disability Medical Board, West Tripura, Agartala to the extent of 30% for a period of 5 years. However, when the Board did not mention anything about the functional disability of the appellant, this Court by the order dated 29-9-2016 asked the Board to re-examine the disability of the appellant in the context of functional disability. The District Disability Board, after re-examining the petitioner, vide its letter dated 19-9-2016 certified that the appellant is suffering from low vision due to RE-Strabusmus Fixus and that his disability is to extent of 30% with the recommendation that he be re-assessed after five years. The Board, however, opined that the disability of the appellant to the extent of 30% would have no impact upon his functional disability. In my considered view, when the appellant does not suffer from any functional disability, there is no question of loss of future income. The Tribunal rightly held that as the appellant was not referred to any hospital outside Tripura for better treatment, he could not be held entitled to any passage money for the journey performed by him to Kolkata by plane in connection with his treatment. The learned Member awarded Rs.5,000/- as miscellaneous expenses like transportation, fooding, lodging, etc. He also awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain, sufferings and loss amenities in life, Rs.12,000/- for loss of income following his injuries and another sum of Rs.11,450/- towards cost of his treatment. The learned Member awarded Rs.5,000/- as miscellaneous expenses like transportation, fooding, lodging, etc. He also awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain, sufferings and loss amenities in life, Rs.12,000/- for loss of income following his injuries and another sum of Rs.11,450/- towards cost of his treatment. The total amount of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, comes to Rs.1,15,450/-. 6. In so far as pain and suffering is concerned, in my opinion, the Tribunal is too economical and has lost sight of the latest decisions of the Apex Court. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings. The appellant is further to another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent disability/loss of amenities, happiness and enjoyment of life. The appellant is also entitled to future medical expense to the order of Rs.20,000/- and another sum of Rs.10,000/- for expenses during the pendency of this appeal. This calculation is made along the lines of the decision of he Apex Court in Jakir Hussain v. Sabir and others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 . I do not, however, propose to interfere with the award of Rs.5,000/- as miscellaneous expenses, the award of Rs.12,000/- for loss of income following his injuries and another sum of Rs.11,450/- towards cost of his treatment. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs.2,58,450/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty-eight thousand four hundred and fifty)only. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of the claim petition. 7. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this appeal is partly allowed. The respondent No. 2 is, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,58,450/- together with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount to the Registry of this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this judgment for payment to the appellant. Any amount already paid or deposited by the respondent No. 2 shall be adjusted accordingly. As and when the awarded amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the appellant by the usual arrangement without further reference to this Court. The impugned award dated 7-9-2011 stands modified to the extent indicated above. Transmit the L.C. record forthwith.