JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K K Pal, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. P Ghatak, the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle respondent No.1 as well as Mr. P K Debnath, the learned counsel for the insurance company respondent No.2, at some length. 2. The appeal is directed against the award, dated 04-02-2013, passed by a learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, in Case No.T.S(MAC)289/2010, awarding a sum of Rs.56,725/- as compensation together with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of claimant-appellant for the injury sustained by him in the vehicular accident in question. 3. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant, in the vehicular accident, did not sustain permanent disablement of any nature. During the course of hearing, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has now been confined to the non-payment under the head of pain and sufferings, which according to him should be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. As for loss of amenities, no pleadings in that account was made by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal and as such this Court is not inclined to pass any award for the loss of amenities of life. 4. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. And others, 1995 ACJ 366, the claimant therein was awarded Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of the claim for pain and sufferings. According to the Apex Court, when compensation is to be awarded for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future earning. In the instant case, the appellant happens to be a ‘Constable’ in the Tripura State Rifles (TSR), who has now been further promoted to ‘Habildar’ and as such, his earning capacity has not been affected in any manner by the vehicular accident in question. That apart, there is no evidence of permanent disablement or the need for further treatment in future. Under the circumstances, in addition to the award already passed by the Tribunal, the ends of the justice would be met if another sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings. That apart, there is no evidence of permanent disablement or the need for further treatment in future. Under the circumstances, in addition to the award already passed by the Tribunal, the ends of the justice would be met if another sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings. It is, however, pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the Tribunal has not fasten the liability upon the insurer to satisfy the award on the ground of breach of policy conditions, it has now been proved before the Tribunal at the stage of adducing additional evidence as directed by this Court that the vehicle was actually insured with the respondent No.2 (the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.). The original insurance certificate is exhibited as Ext.A. In view of this evidence, the responsibility for satisfying the award shall have to be necessarily fastened upon the respondent No.2. Resultantly, this appeal partly succeeds. 5. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit this Registry the amount as awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala together with Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as awarded by this Court along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 29-7-2010 within six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be released to the appellant by the Registry after satisfying the usual formalities without further reference to this Court. The impugned judgment and award stands modified only to the extent and in the manner indicated above. 6. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms. Transmit the lower court records forthwith.