JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, New India Assurance Company Limited. Despite due notice from this court, none appears for the respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-01-C-4460 [auto-rickshaw]. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated delivered in T.S. (MAC) 297 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala on the ground of inadequacy. There is no dispute in respect of the road traffic accident that occurred on 17.09.2010 at about 8/8.30 p.m. at Arya tilla on Assam-Agartala road under Ranirbazaar police station, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-C-4460 [auto-rickshaw]. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner received severe injuries on vital parts of his body and he was rushed to GBP hospital, Agartala. Immediately after the accident his condition was highly critical. As a result, on the following day i.e. 18.09.2010 he was referred to SSKM hospital, Kolkata by the Standing Medical Board of that hospital. Pursuant to that, the appellant was taken to Kolkata by an escort and he got admitted in the Medica Super Speciality hospital, Mukundapur, Kolkata. During that period he had to undergo major operations on spending huge amount of money. 3. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that while granting the compensation the Tribunal has given the amount on various components in the following manner: (i) For pain and saffering Rs. 15,000/- (ii) For medical expenses in kolkata Rs. 1,93,000/- (iii) For air travel Rs. 8,813/- (iv) For loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Thus, the total compensation of Rs.2,27,446/- with interest @6% per annum has been determined. The compensation has been directed to be paid by the respondent No.2 with the said rate of interest w.e.f. 05.08.2011 when the claim petition was filed by the appellant. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that the amount for pain and suffering, as granted by the Tribunal is starkly disproportionate to the injuries that the appellant has received. That apart, he has not been paid the expenses for the stay at Kolkata and the air travel. Mr. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that the amount for pain and suffering, as granted by the Tribunal is starkly disproportionate to the injuries that the appellant has received. That apart, he has not been paid the expenses for the stay at Kolkata and the air travel. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has contended that the appellant is a fruit vendor but his monthly income has been determined at Rs.4,000/- and that too for a period of one month and thus the loss of income has been granted by the said award. He has, therefore, urged to reassess and re-determine the compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that in the determination, there is no infirmity and hence the impugned judgment and award warrants no interference from this court. 5. This court has scrutinized the records and finds that the expenses in the Medica Super Speciality hospital at Kolkata as made by the appellant, has been awarded by the tribunal but the tribunal did not pay any amount for the escort’s stay and the stay of the victim at Kolkata, for which the bills have been produced in the tribunal. On that account, the appellant is entitled to Rs.15,000/-, though the vouchers are of Rs.12,600/-. This court is also of the view that the appellant was taken by a stretcher and it was advised by the Medical Board that he should be accompanied by one person for his journey to Kolkata. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that one doctor had to accompany him to monitor his state. As such, the expenses of the air travel of the doctor and the escort are to be paid. As a result, another sum of Rs.10,000/- be added, in addition to what has been paid to the appellant by the tribunal. 6. The tribunal has determined the monthly income of the appellant without any evidence but by guess. Let the income of the appellant be determined at Rs.8,000/- per month as this court has come to this sum considering the capacity of the appellant. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has rightly said that after suffering from such injury, a person is not expected to come in the full capacity to work and trade, within six months. Let the income of the appellant be determined at Rs.8,000/- per month as this court has come to this sum considering the capacity of the appellant. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has rightly said that after suffering from such injury, a person is not expected to come in the full capacity to work and trade, within six months. As such on account for temporary loss of income, a sum of Rs.48,000/- be paid to the appellant. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.48,000/- in addition to what has been assessed by the tribunal. 7. For pain and suffering, the amount that has been determined by the tribunal is truly inadequate and the said sum should be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.25,000/- which he might pay to defray the expenses for his future treatment. Thus, the award is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,29,000/-. 8. In view of the limited interference as above, the total compensation would come to Rs.3,56,444/- say Rs.3,56,000/-. This amount shall carry interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 05.08.2011, the date of filing the claim petition till the payment is made. The respondent no.2 is directed to make the said payment within a period of one month from the date when they would receive a copy of this order on deducting the sum, they have already paid. After deposit, the appellant will be entitled to get the entire amount disbursed on following the procedure. The penal rate of interest as imposed by the tribunal is interfered with as within the authority of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to impose such interest. 9. As such, the appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel appearing for the parties. Send down the LCRs forthwith.