JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant as well as Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. None appears for the respondent No.1 despite due notice from this court. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act from the judgment and award dated 02.02.2015 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 29 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati Tripura. 3. There is no dispute that on 26.07.2012, the claimant-appellant while proceeding towards Netaji Palli, Dhajanagar to give private tuition on foot keeping the left side of the road, at a place just nearby Kinder Garten School at Dhajanagar, one motor bike bearing No.TR036182 (Bajaj Caliber) hit her being driven rashly and negligently. She fell down and sustained grievous fracture injury on her head and other multiple bleeding injuries on other parts of her body. She was taken to Tripura Sundari District hospital, Udaipur for treatment and she was treated in that hospital on 30.07.2012. On the very day itself, she was referred to Agartala Government Medical College and GBP hospital and on the following day i.e. on 31.07.2012, she was referred to SSKM/NNC, Kolkata for better management of her illness as the state at that point of time lacked the proper facility. She was taken to Kolkata and admitted in Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Centre under National Neurosciences Centre. She was treated there till 10.08.2012. During the treatment, she had undergone various examinations. Even after being discharged from the Peerless Hospital she was under treatment in the private clinics. At the time of accident the claimant-appellant was 43(forty three) years of age and she has claimed to have been earning a sum of Rs.10,000/per month from her private tuitions. She claimed for Rs.15,50,000/as compensation for the damages she received from the accident. The tribunal after inquiry awarded a sum of Rs.96,400/with interest at 6% per annum with effect from 24.08.2013, the day of filing of the claim petition. It has been also observed that if the compensation is not paid within 2(two) months the awarded sum will carry interest at 9% per annum till payment is made. The said judgment and award as stated is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Ms. It has been also observed that if the compensation is not paid within 2(two) months the awarded sum will carry interest at 9% per annum till payment is made. The said judgment and award as stated is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant has submitted that no compensation has been granted for the expenses that the claimant made during her treatment for 10(ten) days as stated while giving a lump sum of Rs.65,000/for medical treatment. The other expense was not granted as it ought to have been granted. However, this submission has emanated from the confusion as generated for observation made in the paragraph 10 of the judgment where it has been written that fooding, lodging and conveyance charges during treatment period at Kolkata for about 10(ten) days not included with this. But later on it has been written that for medical treatment including fooding, lodging and conveyance the said sum of Rs.65,000/was awarded. Even if it is understood in the manner that Rs.54,000/did not include the several expenses for the treatment on those 10(ten) days, but the aggregate did include. Thus, this court has to infer that only Rs.11,000/has been granted to the appellant for lodging, fooding and conveyances etc. It is also not disputed that when the claimant-appellant went to the outside hospitals including the GBP hospital and Peerless hospital respectively at Agartala and Kolkata the claimant-appellant was accompanied by an escort. Thus, Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel has submitted that on those 10(ten) days the expenses for fooding, lodging and the conveyances shall be much more and the court can do a reasonable guess work coming to this component of the award as the claimant-appellant did not submit any documentary evidence in support of this. This court finds that there is substance in her submission. 5. Even though Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel has submitted that it was the duty of the claimant-appellant to prove by giving the account to the tribunal what amount actually had she expended for that purpose. The considered view of this court is that the claimant-appellant is entitled to Rs.25,000/. Thus for the expenses of the medicine, hospital cost, fooding lodging and conveyance the total amount would come to Rs.79,000/on aggregate. The considered view of this court is that the claimant-appellant is entitled to Rs.25,000/. Thus for the expenses of the medicine, hospital cost, fooding lodging and conveyance the total amount would come to Rs.79,000/on aggregate. So far the expenses relating to air fare is concerned, this court will not interfere with the finding of the tribunal and thus the award of Rs.10.000/is affirmed. 6. Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant has pointed out that the finding of the tribunal that the scope of compensation is confined within the ambit of Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act cannot be sustained inasmuch as the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act inasmuch as the claimant-appellant has categorically pleaded and proved that the accident could occur only for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which was under valid insurance coverage of the respondent No.2 at the relevant point of time. Thus, Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant is entirely correct when she contended that the award of Rs.1,000/for pain and suffering is wholly unacceptable in the circumstances of the case. This court would therefore award a sum of Rs.50,000/for pain and suffering in favour of the claimant-appellant. This court would not interfere with the loss of income as awarded for the 6(six) months and thus the said amount shall remain intact and hence she would be entitled to loss of income for the period of 6(six) months at Rs.20,400/. The total compensation thus would come to Rs.1,59,400/. The said award shall carry interest @9% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 24.08.2013 till the entire amount is paid by the respondent No.2. The penal interest as imposed by the tribunal @9% per annum stand interfered with. However there shall be no impact as this court has increased the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 9% per annum. The respondent No.2 is directed to pay the entire awarded sum within a period of 2(two) months from today on deducting the amount, if they have paid any amount by this time. On such deposit, the claimant-appellant would be entitled to receive the said amount on proper identification, from the tribunal. 7. Having held so, this appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs thereafter. On such deposit, the claimant-appellant would be entitled to receive the said amount on proper identification, from the tribunal. 7. Having held so, this appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs thereafter. A copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.