JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the judgment and award dated 29.04.2015 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 142 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The appellant is the victim of the accident which occurred on 27.01.2014 when she was travelling to her place of service by boarding the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-03-1257 (mini bus). For the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle, the said accident took place near a place called Puran Bari on Agartala-Bishramganj road. As a result of the said accident, the appellant received injuries on various parts of her body and also received fracture injuries on her rib and forehead. After the accident, the appellant was immediately shifted to Bishalgarh hospital and considering the seriousness of her injury, she was referred to the GBP hospital, Agartala. In the GBP hospital, the appellant was treated from 27.01.2014 to 04.02.2014. She was advised for bed rest for 45 days. The appellant has in the claim petition stated that ‘till today she is continuing her treatment. For purpose of her treatment near about Rs.50,000/- has already been spent and more amount is required for her future treatment’. 4. The fact in respect of the accident, negligence, involvement of the said vehicle and its valid coverage by the respondent No.2 undertaking to indemnify for any damage that may occur for use of the vehicle and that the petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident have not been disputed by the parties in this appeal. Two grounds of objections as raised by the appellant are : (i) The cost of treatment that has been incurred outside the State including journey and stay has not been awarded by the tribunal; and (ii) the award in respect of the pain and suffering is too inadequate to make the award just and reasonable. 5. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has categorically submitted that at the second phase of treatment, the petitioner went to Sri Ram Chandra Medical Centre at Chennai for post traumatic deformity in relation to fracture that was received in the road traffic accident which occurred on 27.01.2014. Mr. 5. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has categorically submitted that at the second phase of treatment, the petitioner went to Sri Ram Chandra Medical Centre at Chennai for post traumatic deformity in relation to fracture that was received in the road traffic accident which occurred on 27.01.2014. Mr. Das, learned counsel has referred to the discharge summary (Exhibit 4) in order to show that the appellant was treated in the said hospital for post-traumatic deformity correction of left zygomaticomaxillary complex under general anesthesia. Mr. Das, learned counsel has also pointed out that the said treatment had been provided by the attending doctors for the road traffic accident. For purpose of the said treatment, the petitioner has made an expenditure of Rs.60,317/-, as would be evident from the In-patient bill dated 17.05.2014 (Exhibit 8). That apart, the appellant have paid a sum of Rs.19,000/- for stay in a lodge in Chennai, bill of which is available at Annexure-8 to the appeal. Similarly she had incurred expenditure of travelling by taxi to the hospital, to the extent of Rs.1,500/-, the voucher of which is Exhibit-8 to the appeal. From the exhibited documents, it appears that for attending the said hospital in Chennai, the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.23,000/- altogether. Mr. Das, learned counsel has emphatically urged that the appellant is entitled to get the said expenditure. Finally, Mr. Das, learned counsel has stated that the award of Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering is to inadequate in view of the injuries that the appellant had suffered from the said accident. Regarding the other components of the compensation there is no dispute from the appellant. 6. While repelling the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the reason given by the tribunal for not paying the said amount as claimed, is highly acceptable and this court may not interfere the reason as provided by the tribunal. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has, in particular referred to the following observation made by the tribunal: “The Exbt.4 i.e. discharge summary of Mrs. Gita Das Choudhury from the period to 14.05.2014 to 17.05.2014 cannot be taken into consideration as those facts are beyond her pleadings. The expenditure of treatment s proved as Exbts. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has, in particular referred to the following observation made by the tribunal: “The Exbt.4 i.e. discharge summary of Mrs. Gita Das Choudhury from the period to 14.05.2014 to 17.05.2014 cannot be taken into consideration as those facts are beyond her pleadings. The expenditure of treatment s proved as Exbts. 6 and 6/1 to 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 6/5, 6/6, 6/7, 6/8 and 6/9 cannot be taken into consideration as those relates to her journey from Agartala to other States”. 7. This court is confronted with a question- whether a claim petition can be equated with that of a plaint or it is a mere statement of claim for purpose of inquiry. The tribunal can give the compensation beyond the claim to achieve and accord the just compensation. 8. This issue is no more res integra as the Apex Court has stated that it is an inquiry about the entitlement of the victim of the Motor Accident. The final arbiter is the tribunal to ascertain what the amount to be granted to the victim in the form of award. The award may not be whimsical or an unjustifiable bonanza, but that should be reasonable and just in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the strict rigor of the procedural of law cannot be applied under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the semblance of the procedure that is followed. The inquiry is sometimes structured on the CPC. The parties are given the opportunities and they are not left aside in the matter of placing the statement and the counter statement and the supportive evidence. The tribunal as it appears has in haste failed to observe that “till the date of filing of the claim petition she was continuing her treatment and she had already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for her treatment”. For the statement that she was under treatment till the date of filing of the claim petition, the appellant was entitled to get the cost of her treatment. 9. As such, this court is of the view that the claimant-appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.60,370/- for treatment at Chennai. Another sum of Rs.20,500/- for the cost of stay at Chennai and for her commuting by taxi alongwith a further sum of Rs.23,000/- as air fare for travelling to and fro Chennai. 9. As such, this court is of the view that the claimant-appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.60,370/- for treatment at Chennai. Another sum of Rs.20,500/- for the cost of stay at Chennai and for her commuting by taxi alongwith a further sum of Rs.23,000/- as air fare for travelling to and fro Chennai. Thus, an additional sum of Rs.1,03,870/- is entitled to the claimant appellant. That apart, according to this court the award for pain and suffering is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- on that count. Thus, the claimant appellant would get more amount of Rs.1,23,870/- say Rs.1,24,000/-. The total compensation would, therefore, come to ( Rs.1,24,000 + Rs.47,805, as awarded by the tribunal) = Rs. 1,71,805/- say Rs.1,72,000/-. The said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 02.05.2014 till the date of payment. The respondent no.2 is directed to pay the said amount within a period of 1(one) month from today on deducting the sum, if any, they have already paid. 10. In the result, the impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2015 is interfered to the extent as indicated above and the appeal, therefore, is allowed to that extent. No order as to costs. 11. Copy of this judgment and order be supplied to the parties free of cost.