Judgment and Order : 1. Heard Mr. D. K. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Despite due notice from this Court, none appears for the respondent No. 1. 2. This is an appeal by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the judgment and award dated 11.02.2016, delivered in T. S. (MAC) No. 301 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The finding that on 29.04.2014 at about 7.00 pm, the appellant was hit by the motor bike bearing registration No. TR- 01-P-8208 (T.V.S. Stars Sports), which was being driven by the respondent No. 1rashly and negligently. The said accident occurred on the I.T.I. road near Indranagar Dairy and from that accident the appellant sustained fracture injury in his right tibia. He was immediately rushed to the GBP Hospital, Agartala there he was treated as an indoor patient continuously for 16 days. He was operated upon and the plates are placed by nails to protect the tibia. 4. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the said accident was under valid insurance coverage by the respondent No. 2, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Agartala Division. The tribunal, on recording the evidence, has passed the impugned award granting a sum of Rs. 64,000/- with 9% simple interest from 26.09.2014, the day of filing the claim petition. 5. Being aggrieved by that amount of compensation, this appeal has been filed. Moreover, the appellant has become successful in admitting some additional evidence means if by the order dated 09.11.2016 delivered in I.A. No. 1005 of 2016. Those documentary evidence include the discharge certificate dated 14.05.2016 (Exhibit-9), the list of prescribed medicines (Exhibit- 10) requisitions made for medicines (Exhibit-11), registration dated 28.05.2016 of the appellant at Out Patient Department (Exhibit-12) prescription of Dr. Tapan Kr. Das dated 22.05.2016 (Exhibit-13), the cash memos dated 14.05.2016 and 19.05.2016 3 nos. (Exhibits 14-15 respectively), the payment slip of the ECG dated 23.02.2016 (Exhibit-16) and the cash memos dated 14.05.2016 2 nos.(Exhibit-17 series) issued by the Prativa Medical Hall, G. B. Bazar, Agartala. Tapan Kr. Das dated 22.05.2016 (Exhibit-13), the cash memos dated 14.05.2016 and 19.05.2016 3 nos. (Exhibits 14-15 respectively), the payment slip of the ECG dated 23.02.2016 (Exhibit-16) and the cash memos dated 14.05.2016 2 nos.(Exhibit-17 series) issued by the Prativa Medical Hall, G. B. Bazar, Agartala. Those were introduced because after the first phase of treatment, the appellant has claimed that he had undergone the treatment continuously and finally on 14.05.2016 he had further undergone surgery for removing those plates and nails from the tibia. 6. Mr. D. K. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that even in assessing the income of the appellant, the tribunal has determined the victim’s monthly income in the lower side and calculated the loss of income only for two months even though the appellant was under incapacity for about 2 years. 7. He has further stated that the amount as awarded for pain and suffering at Rs. 30,000/-, in consideration of the trauma and suffering that the appellant has gone through is too meager an amount it requires interference by this Court. 8. That apart, for the appellant some further components in the compensation has been claimed, such as future treatment cost, transportation, expenses for of food and nourishment and the charge of the attendant for 16 days when the appellant was treated as the indoor patient. Further, for leave as was taken by his wife for 18 days. 9. Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has fairly admitted that the cost of the treatment in the second phase may be awarded to the appellant but the claim of future medical treatment is unrealistic in the circumstances and as such, this should be discarded by this Court. Moreover, he has submitted that after the treatment in the first phase, the appellant has claimed another sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards medicine, attendant’s charge, diet and transportation etc., cannot be granted as those are not supported by any documentary evidence. 10. However, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has fairly admitted that same documents have been filed by way of additional affidavit and those can be considered by this Court. He has opposed the prayer for enhancing the award in respect of pain and suffering to the extent of Rs. 2,00000/-. 10. However, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has fairly admitted that same documents have been filed by way of additional affidavit and those can be considered by this Court. He has opposed the prayer for enhancing the award in respect of pain and suffering to the extent of Rs. 2,00000/-. According to him is not only exorbitant but not reasonable at all in the perspective of this case. 11. Having considered the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the monthly income as assessed by the tribunal is not required to be interfered with but it cannot be denied for the incapacity the appellant has suffered he is bound to suffer a loss more than what has been assessed by the tribunal. 12. The appellant has claimed loss of income for the period of 6 (six) months when he was under extreme incapacity. Thus, the said amount would be (7000x6) Rs. 42,000/- instead of Rs.14,000/-. The appellant would get a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the cost of his treatment, which amount includes the cost supported by the cash memos to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. That apart, the appellant would get another sum of Rs. 30,000/- for future treatment which was not considered by the tribunal at all. 13. The appellant would be entitled to the attendant,s charge also for 16 (sixteen) days when he was in the hospital as indoor patient at Rs. 10,000/- [Rs. 300 per day for two attendants x 16 days = 9,600/- rounded off at Rs. 10,000/-]. For the other miscellaneous expenses the appellant would get another sum of Rs. 15,000/- on aggregate for the two phase of the treatment. 14. That apart the appellant would get a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the pain and suffering. Now the compensation would be deduced in the following manner: Loss of earning Rs. = 42,000/-. Cost of medicines etc. two phases. Rs. = 20,000+20,000 = 40,000/- in For future treatment Rs. = 30,000/-. For attandants Rs. = 10,000/-. For miscellaneous expenses Rs. = 15,000/- and for pain and suffering Rs. = Rs. 50,000/- Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 1,87,000/- the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 26.09.2014 till the payment is made by the respondent No. 2. 15. For attandants Rs. = 10,000/-. For miscellaneous expenses Rs. = 15,000/- and for pain and suffering Rs. = Rs. 50,000/- Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 1,87,000/- the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 26.09.2014 till the payment is made by the respondent No. 2. 15. The respondent No. 2(two) is directed to pay the entire awarded sum within a period of 2 months from today in the tribunal on deducting the amount, if any, they have already paid. The appellant shall be entitled to receive the entire amount from the tribunal after such deposit is made on proper identification. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Draw the award accordingly and thereafter send down the LCRs. Copy of this judgment and order be served to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.