JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. None appears for the other respondent No.1, despite due notice from this court. 2. By means of this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the victim namely Sri Ratan Dhar, who suffered injury on head from a motor accident that occurred on 18.09.2010 when he was going by the vehicle bearing No. TR-01- M-0715 from Agartala to Bishalgarh has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.09.2013 delivered in T.S. (MAC)304 of 2011. 3. The accident, according to the injured claimant occured for the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle when the vehicle was negotiating a curve near the Jute Mills at Hapania. It dashed a road-side tree and got turtle. The appellant was immediately rushed to B.R. Ambedkar hospital and therefrom he was referred to G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala. The appellant was admitted at G.B.P. Hospital on 19.09.2010 and he was admittedly under treatment till 21.09.2010. In connection with that accident, Amtali P/S Case No. 132/2010 U/S 279/338 of the IPC was registered against the driver of the said vehicle. The solitary point that has been raised in this appeal hinges on the method of calculating the compensation. 4. Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal by the judgment and award dated 27.09.2013 has assessed the compensation in the following manner: For the cost of engaging attendant Rs.450/- For the conveyance charge Rs.1000/- For the loss of income Rs.3000/- For pain and suffering Rs.3000/- Total Rs.7,450/- 5. Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel has thereafter submitted that having regard to the nature of the injury, the said amount is inadequate and cannot be termed as just compensation as envisaged under Section 168 of the M.V. Act. 6. Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 while defending the impugned judgment has contended that the tribunal has correctly awarded the compensation and no interference is called for. 7. Having scrutinizing the records, this court finds that the compensation is required to be interfered with for purpose of marginal modification. Accordingly, the compensation is derived and re-determined in the following manner : (i) Cost of engaging attendant Rs. 7. Having scrutinizing the records, this court finds that the compensation is required to be interfered with for purpose of marginal modification. Accordingly, the compensation is derived and re-determined in the following manner : (i) Cost of engaging attendant Rs. 900/- (ii) Cost of Medicines Rs.1,170/- [which was not included while drawing the award by the tribunal] (iii) Loss of income Rs.12,000/- [for recovery 30 days being considered] (iv) For pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.24,000/- (twenty four thousand) That amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the day of filing the claim petition i.e. 08.08.2011. However this court is constrained to interfere with the panel rate of interest as imposed by the tribunal, inasmuch as the tribunal is not authorized to impose penal interest within the ambit of Section 171 of the M.V. Act and accordingly, the said penal interest is set aside. 8. The respondent No. 2 shall pay the awarded sum within a period of 2(two) months from today in the tribunal on deducting the payment, if any, as already made. The appellant shall be at liberty to receive the said amount on such deposit on proper identification. 9. With these observations and direction, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Send down the LCRs after drawing up the award.