JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. AS Lodh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent. 2. This is an appeal filed by the victim, hereinafter the appellant, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 30.11.2013 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 445 of 2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.3, West Tripura, Agartala. The grounds as projected in the memorandum of appeal are all relating to the assessment of the compensation. There is no dispute that the appellant who filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sustained injury from the road traffic accident that occurred on 14.07.2010 at about 12.00 am at Abhoynagar near New star club on Motor-stand-GB road under East Agartala police station for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-R-0709 [Ambassador]). These aspects are not in dispute. On appreciation of the evidentiary materials, the tribunal had declined to pass any award. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before this court being MAC APP 110 of 2012 when this High Court had interfered with the said judgment dated 07.06.2012 on observing as under : “Having considered the submission of learned counsel of both sides and further considering that it is motor accident claims case, a chance is given to the claimant-appellant to appear and adduce evidence before the Tribunal within a month from the date to be fixed by the Tribunal subject to condition that the appellant shall pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) to the respondent and the cost amount should be paid before the date fixed for giving the evidence. With this observation, the judgment and ‘Nil’ award, dated 07.06.2012, passed by the Tribunal is interfered and set aside. The Tribunal is directed to give an opportunity to the appellant in terms of the aforesaid and to dispose the same accordingly by passing appropriate order”. 3. Following the direction and on reassessment of the evidentiary materials, the judgment dated 30.11.2013 was passed awarding a sum of Rs.28,855/-, on various components along, with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 20.12.2010 till the payment is made. 4. The respondent has been directed to pay the said amount within a period of 2(two) months. 4. The respondent has been directed to pay the said amount within a period of 2(two) months. Failure in making the payment within the stipulated time i.e. within 2 months from the date of the judgment the awarded sum shall, as directed, carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 5. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the compensation as awarded is wholly unreasonable, unjust and not at all commensurate to the damage that the appellant has suffered. It has been claimed that due to the accident, the appellant sustained serious injury on his knee and he has become incapacitated to the extent, his occupation is concerned he has become permanently incapacitated. That apart, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has pointed out that for pain and suffering or mental agony from such injury and trauma a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. Such sum is shockingly inadequate warranting interference. He has further submitted that in assessing the monthly income of the injured appellant, the tribunal did not extend its judicious consideration. Even in the absence of documentary evidence, the tribunal can draw a reasonable inference. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has further submitted that the cost for treatment as awarded is far lower than the actual costs, as it does not account the costs for transportation, food etc. Hence, what has been given by the tribunal cannot match with what was actually spent. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has further submitted that the loss of income as assessed is unacceptable inasmuch as it is not the reflection of what the claimant has lost for the injury as stated. The petitioner was under treatment from 14.07.2010 to 29.10.2010. He could not recover completely from the disability that he has sustained from the said accident. In this regard, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has referred to the disability certificate that has been issued by the District Disability Medical Board on 16.04.2014 where it has been observed that the petitioner would continue to suffer 30% disability for five years. The petitioner’s disability is a locomotor disability and the most affected part of the body is his right leg. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the compensation in this regard is conspicuously absent. However, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has strenuously argued that such component shall be added with the aggregate compensation. 4. On the other hand, Ms. The petitioner’s disability is a locomotor disability and the most affected part of the body is his right leg. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the compensation in this regard is conspicuously absent. However, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has strenuously argued that such component shall be added with the aggregate compensation. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Lodh, learned Additional G.A. appearing for the respondent has submitted that it is really surprising how the petitioner has collected the disability certificate after about six years of the accident. Even the finding in the said certificate is questionable. Ms. Lodh, learned Additional G.A. has submitted that the compensation as assessed by the tribunal is proper and as such no interference is called for on any component of the compensation. 5. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the way the compensation has been assessed cannot be held to be reasonable process for determining the compensation. Hence, interference is imminent to some extent. Having observed thus, this court would proceed to reassess the compensation. The judgment what is under challenge is therefore set aside to the limited extent, as is discussed hereinafter. 6. It cannot be denied that the petitioner attended the outpatient department of GBP hospital on various occasions starting from 14.07.2010 to 29.10.2010 As such it can safely be assumed that the petitioner had at least suffered three months complete incapacity. During that period he was under treatment. Thus, he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,000/-. This court will not interfere with the monthly income as assessed by the tribunal. Moreover, the amount, the tribunal has awarded against the cash memos and receipts, the cost of medicine to the extent of Rs.1,855/- shall remain unaltered. So, far the pain and suffering is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- having regard to the nature of injuries he has suffered. So far loss of income is concerned, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the damage for the partial permanent disablement. 7. This court is of the view that the petitioner would get the loss of income for 9(nine) years inasmuch as the accident took place on 14.07.2010 and by the certificate for the person with disability dated 16.04.2014 [Exbt. 7. This court is of the view that the petitioner would get the loss of income for 9(nine) years inasmuch as the accident took place on 14.07.2010 and by the certificate for the person with disability dated 16.04.2014 [Exbt. A-1] the District Disability Board has opined that such disability will continue for the next 5(five) years. The appellant has been given the compensation for three months and hence he will be entitled to the loss [for the remaining part] till 16.04.2019. Thus, the appellant would get the compensation for 8 years and 3 months. As the petitioner has been determined to have suffered disability to the extent of 30%, he would lose income approximately to the extent of 25% out of his total income. Thus, the loss per month would come for the said period of disability at Rs.1,500/-. The annual loss thus would come to Rs.18,000/- per year and accordingly the petitioner would be entitled to get (Rs.18,000 x 8 years 3 months) = Rs. 1,20,500/-. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs.(1,90,355 + 5,000) = 1.95.355/- as this court has not interfered with the amount of Rs.5,000/- as awarded in favour of the appellant for miscellaneous expenses like transportation, fooding etc. The said amount shall be paid to the appellant with interest @7% per annum from the date of judgment i.e. 07.06.2012. 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. 8. Having observed thus, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith.