JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals are against a Judgment and Award dated 19th December, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/learned Judge, XIIth Bench, City Civil Court, Kolkata in MJC Case No. 383 being an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The case is unfortunate. On 17th December 2006, a 19 year old student Rohan Singh, hereinafter referred to as the Victim, was going for a picnic to Bandel with his friends. 3. On the way, the victim along with his friends stopped at Chakundi to have tea at a road side stall. The bike which the victim had been riding was parked by the side of the road and the victim was drinking tea, sitting on his stationary bike. 4. While the victim was sitting on his bike, and having tea, a lorry bearing the Registration No. WB03A 4333, owned by M/s. K.D. Enterprise, and covered by a policy of insurance issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd., hit the victim from behind and ran over his right foot, which was crushed, and had to be amputated. 5. By the judgment and award under appeal, the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 12,44,000/- to the victim as per the particulars given below : Mental trauma, physical pain etc. Rs.1,00,000/- Future Medical Expenses Rs.5,00,000/- Loss of Expectation of life Rs.6,00,000/- Expenses of attendant Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 12,44,000/- 6. Both National Insurance Company Ltd, hereinafter referred to as the appellant insurer and the victim have appealed against the judgment and award. While the appellant insurer has contended that the award is excessive, the victim has contended that the compensation is too low. 7. The fault and negligence of the offending vehicle has been established. The offending lorry was at fault and responsible for the accident. It is well settled that the compensation that is payable under Section 166 has to be just and proper. Such compensation cannot be a pittance. Nor can such compensation be a bonanza or a windfall. 8. There is no strait jacket formula for computation of compensation in case of injury, permanent disablement or death in a motor accident. The compensation is usually restitutory. The object of the compensation is to put the victim and/or the heirs of the victim in the same position in which they would have been but for the accident. 9. 8. There is no strait jacket formula for computation of compensation in case of injury, permanent disablement or death in a motor accident. The compensation is usually restitutory. The object of the compensation is to put the victim and/or the heirs of the victim in the same position in which they would have been but for the accident. 9. A disabled victim of a motor accident or the heirs of a deceased victim can never, however, be put in the same position in which they would have been but for the accident, for it is impossible to replace a limb or an organ in the same position that it was, before the accident. Nor is it possible to wipe out the mental trauma of the family members of a deceased victim. 10. In a motor accident claim case, it is the endeavour of the Tribunals and/or Courts to compensate the victim to the extent possible in terms of money. Non-pecuniary loss has to be computed on hypothetical basis. Pecuniary loss has to be assessed. Loss of income may reasonably be assessed as per the guidelines contained in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. It is the case of the victim that he was aspiring to become a model. He was getting a lot of offers. Evidence has been adduced by various companies organising fashion shows etc. to show that the victim was capable of earning lakhs by pursuing a career in modelling. However, as observed by the learned Tribunal there is evidence of actual payment of Rs. 15,000/-. 12. Loss of future income cannot be computed on hypothetical basis. Some reasonable assessment has to be done. May be, the victim would have been a great model. May be he would have withered after a few shows. 13. However, as pointed out by Mr. Pradip Kr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the victim, Rs. 15,000/- was paid in one month. The victim had just about started his career in modeling. We may proceed on the basis that the victim could have earned Rs. 15,000/- per month from modeling, in which case, he would have earned Rs. 1,80,000/- in a year. Pradip Kr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the victim, Rs. 15,000/- was paid in one month. The victim had just about started his career in modeling. We may proceed on the basis that the victim could have earned Rs. 15,000/- per month from modeling, in which case, he would have earned Rs. 1,80,000/- in a year. The aforesaid amount would have to be multiplied by the multiplier 18 applicable to the age group to which the victim belonged, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) S.C.C. 121 . 14. Now the question is what should be the percentage of disability. As per the medical report submitted by the victim, the disability is to the extent of 50%. However, with the help of prosthesis, the functional disability would stand reduced. The functional disability can be assessed to be about 25% after prosthesis. 15. The compensation on account of loss of income and/or pecuniary loss should be 25% of Rs. 1,80,000/- i.e. Rs. 45,000/-, multiplied by the multiplier 18 which works out to Rs. 8,10,000/-. For future medical expenses, the victim has been awarded Rs. 5,00,000/-. The cost of process of prosthesis as per evidence on record was Rs. 1,53,000/- at the time of the accident. As per the evidence available including the literature relating to prosthesis process, it appears that prosthesis is required to be done once in two years. 16. Mr. Roy submitted that the literature indicates that there is likelihood of a price increase of 15% per year. However, with technological advancement it is possible that the cost may also decrease. It would be safe for us to proceed on the basis of the actual cost at the time of the accident, which was Rs. 1,53,000/-. Moreover, the victim would be getting a lump sum amount which he might wisely invest to earn profits. He would also be awarded interest on the compensation amount. 17. The victim being a son of an army officer, his father was entitled to medical reimbursement of expenses incurred on his son till the age of 25 years. The cost of future medical expenses in the shape of prosthesis would be for a period of approximately 38-39 years, that is from the age of 26 to 65 during which period he may have to undergo prosthesis about 12 times. The cost of future medical expenses in the shape of prosthesis would be for a period of approximately 38-39 years, that is from the age of 26 to 65 during which period he may have to undergo prosthesis about 12 times. The compensation on account of future medical expenses should be Rs. 18,36,000/- (Rs.1,53,000/- x 12). 18. The learned Tribunal found that expenses of Rs. 44,000/- have been incurred towards charges of an attendant. Therefore, there will be an award of Rs. 44,000/- incurred towards charges of attendant. A composite compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- may be awarded towards mental agony, pain, suffering, loss of prospects etc. The award is, thus, enhanced as follows : (i) Pecuniary loss of 25% of functional disability (Rs.3,00,000 x 18) Rs. 8,10,000/- (ii) Future medical expenses (1,53,000 x 12) Rs. 18,36,000/- (iii) Loss on account of mental agony, pain, Suffering, loss of prospects etc. Rs. 2,00,000/- (iv) Expenses on account of attendant Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 28,90,000/- 19. Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer cited several judgments where lesser compensation had been awarded for even 100% disability. However, computation varies from case to case depending on the time of the accident, the nature of the treatment, pecuniary loss and other factors. The judgment rendered by any Court in the particular fact of a case cannot operate as precedent. It is the issue of law which is raised and decided, which operates as a precedent. 20. The learned Tribunal directed that the awarded amount shall carry statutory interest if the insurer fails to deposit the awarded amount within the specified time. However, we see no reason why the victim should have been denied pendente lite interest. In Surti Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. & Anr. reported in 2015 SAR (Civil) 571 where the Supreme Court held as follows: "The High Court has further erred in awarding an interest at the rate of 6% per annum only instead of 9% per annum on the compensation amount as per the principles laid by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, [ (2011) 14 SCC 481 ]. We accordingly award an interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount. " 21. In Civil Appeal Nos. We accordingly award an interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount. " 21. In Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 2015, arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4897- 4898 of 2014 (Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa & Ors. etc. v. The Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur), the Supreme Court again held as follows: " The courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded by them to the appellants without following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. [ (2011) 14 SCC 481 ]. Accordingly, we award the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation determined in these appeals from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment." 22. We award interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded in terms of this judgment and order from the date of the filing of the claim application till full payment to the claimant. Needless to mention that interest shall be computed as per reducing balance. 23. The balance amount shall be deposited in the Tribunal. However, on the prayer of Mr. Singh, the operative part of this judgment and order is stayed for a period of three weeks. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 24. Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be delivered to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all usual formalities.