JUDGMENT : This appeal and cross objection are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same award dated 23-08-2013 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 443 of 2010 whereby he awarded compensation of Rs.48,35,888/- to the claimant under the following heads:- Cost of medicine = Rs. 50,000/- Attendant charges = Rs. 34,200/- Lump sum Conveyance charges = Rs. 10,000/- Future Loss of income = Rs.39,41,688/- Future attendant charges = Rs. 2,00,000/- Future medical expenses = Rs. 1,00,000/- Mental stress, agony and discomfort = Rs. 5,00,000/- Total = Rs.48,35,888/- 2. Sri Kohinoor N Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, has made three submissions. His first submission is that the rash and negligent driving has not been proved. His second submission is that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license and the Insurance Company was not given a reasonable opportunity to prove its case and, therefore, the burden of paying the compensation should be shifted upon the owner of the vehicle. He lastly submits that the amount of compensation awarded is highly excessive. On the other hand, Ms. Sujata Deb Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant, submits that the award is just and legal calling for no interference in appeal. 3. First of all, I shall take up the issue of rash and negligent driving. The accident is not denied. It is not disputed that while the petitioner who was then working as a constable with the BSF at Malda in West Bengal was on his bicycle, he was hit from behind by vehicle bearing No.WB-41-C-7777, TATA-407 Med Truck. This truck is admittedly owned by Sri Hari Dey and insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. The claimant stepped into the witness box and supported his claim. He has been cross-examined but neither the insurance company nor the owner of the vehicle examined the driver of the vehicle or any other person to show that the driver of the vehicle was not involved. We are dealing with a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. No doubt under the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) also, it is for the claimant to establish negligence but this is not like a criminal case where negligence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are dealing with a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. No doubt under the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) also, it is for the claimant to establish negligence but this is not like a criminal case where negligence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Motor Accident Claims cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence. In the present case, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the claimant. No other evidence has been led and, therefore, I reject the first submission of Sri Kohinoor N Bhattacharji and hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing No.WB-41-C-7777. 4. Next issue raised by Sri Kohinoor N Bhattacharji is that the Insurance Company was not given any opportunity to prove the fact that the driving license of the driver submitted by the owner was, in fact, a forged and fake driving license. In this behalf, I have gone through the record and I find that this driving license was produced by the owner in Court only on 28.5.2013. According to owner of the vehicle, his driver was one Sri Hafijul Hazra, S/O. Khalek Hazra and he had produced the driving license on 28.5.2013 in this regard. The Insurance Company appointed an Investigator to investigate the matter and the Investigator submitted a report that the license No.WB-25082972 had not been issued in the name of Hafijul Hazra but as per the record of the Licensing Authority this license was issued in favour of one Rajesh Yadav. Therefore, according to the Insurance Company this license was a fake and fraudulent license. The Insurance Company moved an application before the Tribunal on 17.7.2013 seeking permission to summon a witness along with the record from the office of the Licensing Authority, Barasat to prove its case. The learned Tribunal rejected this application as being belated. I fail to understand how this application could be said to be belated. For the first time the Insurance Company was informed about the driving license on 28.5.2013. After that it immediately appointed an Investigator. The Investigator submitted its report and thereafter the Insurance Company filed an application for summoning the witness. In my view, this application was wrongly rejected. 5. However, I am clearly of the view that this is a case which will fall under the category of pay and recover. After that it immediately appointed an Investigator. The Investigator submitted its report and thereafter the Insurance Company filed an application for summoning the witness. In my view, this application was wrongly rejected. 5. However, I am clearly of the view that this is a case which will fall under the category of pay and recover. Even if the driving license is fake, the Insurance Company has to satisfy the award as far as thirty parties are concerned though it may have a right to recover the same from the owner. At this stage, it would be pertinent to point out that even the Tribunal has permitted the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner if some violation of the policy is pointed out. I am afraid that this is not the manner in which the Tribunal should have dealt with the award. Under Section 168 of the M.V. Act, the award of the Tribunal must specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by any of them, as the case may be. Reference may be made to Section 168(1) which reads as follows:- “168. Award of the Claims Tribunal. – (1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.” 5. A bare perusal of Section 168 of the M.V. Act shows that just compensation has to be awarded and it is the duty of the Tribunal to determine not only the just amount of compensation but also to determine who is liable to pay the amount of compensation and furthermore, it is also the duty of the Tribunal to apportion the compensation amongst all the claimants, in case, there are more than one claimant. This is a part and parcel of the job of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and it cannot abdicate its judicial functions by ordering that some issue will be decided at a later stage. All issues must be decided at the time when the award is pronounced. Since I am of the opinion that the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the amount, it would not be proper to ask the claimant to again appear before the trial Court and I, therefore, propose to assess the compensation here and now. 6. Before dealing with this aspect of the matter, I must observe something which is disturbing me. The claimant was working as a constable with the BSF. He was posted in West Bengal. The accident happened in Malda. His entire treatment took place either in West Bengal or in Hyderabad. The claimant is a permanent resident of Nanded in Maharastra and, therefore, I do not understand why the claim petition was filed in Agartala. The petitioner has been in hospital for a long period. He has made a vague assertion that he was temporarily residing in Agartala and that he had some treatment in Agartala. However, not a single scrap of paper has been produced with regard to his treatment in Agartala either as an outdoor patient or as an indoor patient. The claimant has produced a large number of documents showing where he was treated all over the country but has been unable to show even one scrap of paper to show that he was treated at Agartala. In my opinion, the petitioner probably was not residing in Agartala and has filed this petition in Agartala for some other consideration. The claimant has produced a large number of documents showing where he was treated all over the country but has been unable to show even one scrap of paper to show that he was treated at Agartala. In my opinion, the petitioner probably was not residing in Agartala and has filed this petition in Agartala for some other consideration. Having held so, I am clearly of the view that the petitioner should not be non-suited only because of the wrong filing of the petition at Agartala because the petition has been contested by both the owner as well as the Insurance Company through their counsel. However, while passing the award and giving directions with regard to release of this amount, this fact shall be kept in consideration. 7. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees and paisa. 8. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few. 9. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H.West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent: “Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.” 10. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: “Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good.” 11. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good.” 11. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. 12. In the case of Mediana, (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held: “Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given.” 13. In Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest held thus: “To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment.” 14. In Phillips versus Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: “You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered.” Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases “should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure”. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to “hold up his head among his neighbors and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing”, should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. 15. Mc Gregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: “The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.” 16. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held: “The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.” 17. In R.D. Hattangadi versus Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), speaking about the heads of compensation, the Apex Court held thus: “Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they shall include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii)damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, un or sit; (iii) damages for loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” 18. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.” 19. In Sanjay Verma Vs. In Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014)3 SCC 210 , the Apex Court granted compensation under the heads of medical expenses, future treatment, pain and suffering, cost of attendance etc. 20. Applying the aforesaid principles, I now proceed to decide the just compensation in the present case. 21. The petitioner has produced a disability certificate which was issued by the Handicap Board/Ortho/GMC, Nanded and this disability certificate shows that both legs of the petitioner have been affected but his arms are not affected. His disability has been assessed at 60%. In the disability certificate, it has been mentioned that he can perform work by manipulating with fingers. He can perform work by pulling and pushing and he can perform work by lifting. His eyesight is also okay. He can also hear and speak properly and he can also read and write. However, at the same time he cannot perform work by kneeling and crouching. He cannot perform work by bending. He cannot perform work while standing. He cannot perform work by walking. Thus, what clearly emerges is that the petitioner is suffering from Paraplegia, i.e. two of his limbs have been totally affected. Paraplegia means paralysis of the legs and lower body typically caused by spinal injury or disease. In this case, the petitioner has suffered an injury to the spine and his lower limbs have become incapable of work. It has also come on record that due to his injury he was boarded out of the BSF being unfit to perform the duties of a constable. He was, however, entitled to pension etc. in accordance with the provisions applicable to the employees of the BSF. 22. The record of treatment shows that the accident took place on 03.6.2009. He was immediately taken to the hospital at Malda and discharged on the very same date for better treatment by referring him to the hospital at Kolkata. The claimant remained admitted from 09.6.2009 to 28.01.2010 in the BSF Hospital at Kolkata though in between he was sent sometimes to the specialized hospital such as the Bangur Institute of Neuro Science and Psychiatry, National Institute for the Orthopaedically Handicapped etc. This clearly shows that from 03.6.2009, the date of accident till the end of January, 2010 he was in hospital. Unfortunately, he did not recover and has suffered Paraplegia. This clearly shows that from 03.6.2009, the date of accident till the end of January, 2010 he was in hospital. Unfortunately, he did not recover and has suffered Paraplegia. I also find that thereafter the petitioner also went to the Sai Krishna Super Specialty Neuro Hospital at Hyderabad where he was checked up but nothing could be done to improve his condition. It appears that since the petitioner was a constable working in the BSF, the entire cost of his treatment was borne by the BSF. Even so, there are so many other expenses which a patient has to undergo. The claimant was in hospital for almost 8 months, i.e. 240 days. He would have required attendants round the clock and even if the cost of one attendant in Kolkata is taken at Rs.500/- per day, the cost of two attendants comes to Rs.1,000/- per day and, therefore, for 8 months it works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. 23. As far as treatment is concerned, the learned Tribunal has without there being any documents awarded Rs.50,000/- towards cost of treatment. As I have held above that the petitioner being a BSF employee would have been re-compensated for his treatment. However, there are so many other small expenses and, therefore, this amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded. In addition thereto, the petitioner has produced the cash memo in respect of certain items which may not have been paid by his employer and the value of these items is Rs.78,000/-. Therefore, I award him this amount of Rs.80,000/- also. Therefore, total amount of compensation under this head works out to Rs.(50,000 + 80,000) = Rs.1,30,000/-. 24. The award of Rs.10,000/- as lump sum charges for conveyance during the 8(eight) months period of treatment is also upheld. 25. As far as future medical expenses are concerned, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to show anything that he requires future medicines. It is true that he has become totally disabled but his condition is permanently like that and he will not require any specialized treatment in the future and, therefore, I only award him Rs.25,000/- under the head of future medical expenses. 26. As far as future medical attendant charges are concerned, the claimant is bound to the wheelchair. He may not require a full time attendant but he will require an attendant to answer the call of nature, to move around etc. 26. As far as future medical attendant charges are concerned, the claimant is bound to the wheelchair. He may not require a full time attendant but he will require an attendant to answer the call of nature, to move around etc. and, therefore, I award him a cost of a part time attendant and even if the cost of a part time attendant is taken at Rs.2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/- per year and applying multiplier of 17, it works out to Rs.4,08,000/-. 27. I also uphold the award of Rs.5,00,000/- for pain, suffering, mental stress and agony because here is a patient who is bound to the wheelchair for the rest of his life. 28. Now comes the main issue with regard to the loss of future income. The learned Tribunal held that since the petitioner had been discharged from service, his loss of income is 100% and, therefore, calculated the compensation accordingly. I am not at all in agreement with this method applied by the learned Tribunal. It is true that the petitioner has been found not to continue in the BSF by the Medical Board and has been invalidated out of service and has been granted invalidation pensionary benefits. It is also true that the pensionary benefits and other benefits received by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration while assessing compensation. However, what I find from the medical record is that the petitioner is not 100% disabled. It is true that he cannot walk and he is bound to the wheelchair but he can from the wheelchair work and with his arms he can do physical work and he can also do work based on intelligence. He can work as a computer operator and do many other jobs. It is not a case of becoming totally unable to work. The income of the petitioner at the time of the accident was Rs.19,322/- per month and considering his future prospects, 50% is added to his income and, therefore, the amount comes to Rs.28,983/-. I, however, assess the loss of earning capacity at 50%, i.e. Rs.14,491/- which is rounded off to Rs.15,000/- per month or Rs.1,80,000/- per year and applying multiplier of 17 on calculation it comes to Rs.30,60,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs.(2,40,000 + 1,30,000 + 10,000 + 25,000 + 4,08,000 + 5,00,000 + 30,60,000) = Rs.43,73,000/- (rupees forty three lakh seventy three thousand). Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs.(2,40,000 + 1,30,000 + 10,000 + 25,000 + 4,08,000 + 5,00,000 + 30,60,000) = Rs.43,73,000/- (rupees forty three lakh seventy three thousand). 29. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is reduced from Rs.48,35,888/- to Rs.43, 73,000/-, i.e. by Rs.4,62,888/-. Since Rs.30,60,000/- has been awarded to the claimant on account of loss of future income which he would have got in the future and this is a very major portion of the award, it will not carry interest till the date of the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the amount of Rs.13,13,000/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount and the balance amount of Rs.30,60,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till deposit of the amount. 30. The Insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs.69,86,997/- in December, 2014. The Insurance Company may give calculations with regard to its liability as per the award now passed within 3(three) weeks from today. Out of the amount payable to the claimant, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh) shall be released in his favour by remitting it to his personal bank account. Since the petitioner lives in Nanded, he can through his bank send a communication to the Registrar General informing the Registrar General what is the bank account, IFSC number etc. so that the said amount can be deposited directly with bank. Thereafter, the Registrar General in the same bank at Nanded shall put the remaining amount in 5(five) separate FDRs of equal amount each for a period of five years at the first instance. Thereafter, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be released every year in favour of the claimant till the entire amount is paid to him. The interest payable on these FDRs shall be paid to the claimant on quarterly basis. 31. In view of the above discussion, there can be no enhancement of the compensation and the cross objection is accordingly dismissed. 32. Send down the lower court records forthwith. 33. Before parting with this case, it is pertinent to mention that while dealing with the case, a disability certificate issued by the Handicap Board/ortho/G.M.C., Nanded (Exbt.-1 series to the title suit) has come to the notice of this Court. 32. Send down the lower court records forthwith. 33. Before parting with this case, it is pertinent to mention that while dealing with the case, a disability certificate issued by the Handicap Board/ortho/G.M.C., Nanded (Exbt.-1 series to the title suit) has come to the notice of this Court. Repeatedly, I have been finding in Tripura that the disability certificates are not properly issued by the Board. The certificates do not indicate whether the disability is in respect of one portion of the body or in respect of the whole body. Other aspects also have to be taken into consideration. I have gone through this form which has been produced before me and this form is a more comprehensive form. 34. Therefore, the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Tripura, is directed to ensure that a similar form be introduced in the State of Tripura also and with effect from 01.4.2016 all disability certificates, especially for orthopaedically handicapped should be in this form. 35. Send a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Tripura along with photocopy of the said disability certificate.