JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, the owner of the Auto Truck bearing registration No.TR-03B-1544 and Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and award dated 20.11.2013 delivered in T.S.(MAC) No.193/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.5, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The solitary ground urged in this appeal is that, while assessing the compensation the essential components of damage, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, were not taken into due consideration. 4. This is not in dispute that on 27.01.2012 when the appellant was proceeding with vegetables by boarding an Auto Truck bearing No.TR-03B-1544 from Jirania to Kalabagan bazaar, the Auto Truck met an accident for its driving negligently near the bazaar and the appellant sustained fracture injury on his spinal cord. He has also received injuries on other parts of his body. Initially he was taken to the Jirania Primary Health Centre for intervention and thereafter he was shifted to the GBP hospital, Agartala for better management of his injuries. He was there till 06.02.2012. The petitioner had to undergo some major operation. The claim of the appellant is that he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and for the said accident, he has lost such earning in his prime age inasmuch as the appellant is only 30 years of age. He claimed a sum of Rs.46,40,000/- before the Tribunal. But after recording the evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,34,700/- with interest @9% from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 04.05.2012 payable within 30(thirty) days by the respondent No.2 as the respondent No.2 is under a contract of indemnity taking the liabilities whatsoever arise subject to the conditions as laid down in the insurance policy. 5. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was under treatment from 27.01.2012 to 04.02.2012, whereas for purpose of calculation of loss of income during his treatment only 11 days was counted and Rs.500/- per day has been awarded. He has submitted further that the appellant is entitled to the loss of income during the treatment but that has been denied to the appellant. He has submitted further that the appellant is entitled to the loss of income during the treatment but that has been denied to the appellant. He has submitted that the income of the appellant has been decided whimsically when there is no contrary evidence against the claim of the appellant that he used to earn Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal ought to have assessed his monthly income at Rs.15,000/- per month as the vegetable vendor. In this regard, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in Syed Sadiq & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735 , where the apex court has observed as under : 7. Further, the appellant claims that he was working as a vegetable vendor. It is true that a vegetable vendor might not require mobility to the extent that he sells vegetables at one place. However, the occupation of vegetable vending is not confined to selling vegetables from a particular location. It rather involves procuring vegetables from the whole-sale market or the farmers and then selling it off in the retail market. This often involves selling vegetables in the cart which requires 100% mobility. But even by conservative approach, if we presume that the vegetable vending by the appellant claimant involved selling vegetables from one place, the claimant would require assistance with his mobility in bringing vegetables to the market place which otherwise would be extremely difficult for him with an amputated leg. We are required to be sensitive while dealing with manual labour cases where loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood. Yet, considering that the appellant claimant is still capable to fend for his livelihood once he is brought in the market place, we determine the disability at 85% to determine the loss of income. 8. The appellant claimant in his appeal further claimed that he had been earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing vegetable vending work. The High Court however, considered the loss of income at Rs.3500/- p.m. considering that the claimant did not produce any document to establish his loss of income. It is difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. In this regard, this Court, in Ramchandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. It is difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. In this regard, this Court, in Ramchandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Limited : (2011) 13 SCC 236 , has held as under: “13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year 2004, was Rs.100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of Rs.3000/- p.m. Secondly, the appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. 14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 15. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4500/- per month. 15. In the present case, appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs.4500/- to Rs.3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4500/-.” 9. There is no reason, in the instant case for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of monthly income of the appellant claimant. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in agricultural products, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month. [Emphasis supplied] 6. The decision in Syed Sadiq (supra) is no avail to the appellant as in that case the apex court in the para 9 has assessed Rs.6,500/- per month as the income of the vegetable vendor as reasonable and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that no further inquiry into the record is required for re-assessing the monthly income of the appellant. There is no dispute as to the award given for purchase of medicine at Rs.1,900/- and the travel expenses between Agartala and Silchar including stay at Rs.3,000/-. 7. Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment and no interference as such is called for. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has also adopted the submission stating that the Tribunal has liberally assessed the compensation. 8. After going through the various documents, particularly the document dated 13.02.2012 (part of the Exbt.1 series), this court is of the view that safely it can be presumed that the appellant continued his treatment from 27.01.2012 to 13.02.2012 and he was not completely recuperated till 13.02.2013, say for about a year. As such, the appellant might have lost the income for that period. Thus, the same may be assessed at Rs.84,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12). As such, the loss of income as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.28,000 is enhanced by this court to Rs.84,000/-. As such, the appellant might have lost the income for that period. Thus, the same may be assessed at Rs.84,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12). As such, the loss of income as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.28,000 is enhanced by this court to Rs.84,000/-. The amount that has been given for pain and suffering is too meagre to be sustained and hence, the amount given for the pain and suffering at Rs.15,000/- is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 9. This court does not intend to enhance any sum for damages, both pecuniary and general in nature departing from what has been awarded by the Tribunal and as such the compensation shall now be Rs.5,500/- for expenses of the attendant, Rs.3,000/- for cost of escort, Rs.4,300/- for purchase of medicine, Rs.1,000 for X-ray etc. and a further sum of Rs.1,900/- for purchase of medicine and follow-up treatment, Rs.3,000/- for travel and stay expenses for treatment at Silchar, Rs.84,000/- for loss of income during treatment, Rs.2,73,000/- for future loss of income for 5(five) years and Rs.50,000 for pain and sufferings. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,25,700/-. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 04.05.2012 till the payment is made. 10. The respondent No.2 shall pay Rs.4,25,700/- (rupees four lakhs twenty five thousand and seven hundred) along with interest @ 9% per annum as indicated above to the appellant within a period of 1(one) month from today in the Tribunal after deducting the amount they have already paid. On such deposit the appellant shall be entitled to receive the said amount from the Tribunal on proper identification. 11. Having held thus, this appeal stands party allowed. Draw the award accordingly. Send down the LCRs Thereafter.