JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an appeal by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 29.10.2014 delivered in T.S.(MAC)298/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati District, Udaipur. 2. The claimant met a road traffic accident on 19.11.2010 and as she suffered damage for negligence arising from the use of the motor vehicle she filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. On 19.11.2010 at about 12.00 hrs. when she was proceeding towards Sindhuk Pathar bazar along with her sister, Tanisha Deb along the Satchand- Manubankul Road on foot, the vehicle bearing No. TR-03-2076 (Mahindra Jeep) hit her. The said accident occurred for rash and negligent driving and the vehicle (Mahindra Jeep) dashed one Motor Bike bearing No. TR-03-B-9843 first and thereafter dashed the claimant and her sister who were treading and keeping them in the extreme left side of the road. From the accident, the claimant sustained fracture injury on her right leg, injury on head and other parts of the body. Immediately she was taken to Manubazar Rural Hospital and from there, she was brought to Tripura Medical College and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Teaching Hospital. She was in the said hospital till 18.12.2010. During that time, the claimant had undergone an operation for fixing plates and screw on her right leg. After discharge from the hospital, again on 15.02.2011, she was admitted to the said hospital and she was operated on 20.01.2011. She was discharged from the hospital on 15.02.2011 with the advisory to attend the OPD time to time. For her treatment, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is claimed to have been spent. She was studying engineering and she used to earn Rs.7000/- per month. She claimed Rs.2,00,000/- for medical treatment, Rs.1,00,000/- for future treatment, Rs.21,200/- for hiring the vehicle and Rs.20,000/- for fooding and lodging, Rs.30,000/- for special nurse and maid servant, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of income, Rs.2,00,000/- for damage of future prospect and Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings. In total, she claimed Rs.7,71,200/- as compensation. 3. After recording the evidence, it surfaced that the Vehicle bearing No. TR-03-2076 (Mahindra Jeep) was responsible for the said accident. On appreciating the evidence as recorded in the inquiry, a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal as compensation. In total, she claimed Rs.7,71,200/- as compensation. 3. After recording the evidence, it surfaced that the Vehicle bearing No. TR-03-2076 (Mahindra Jeep) was responsible for the said accident. On appreciating the evidence as recorded in the inquiry, a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal as compensation. It has also been directed that the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the application i.e. 05.02.2012, if paid within a period two months. If the compensation is not paid within two months, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made. While determining the various components of the compensation an unrealistic approach has been adopted by the tribunal and hence the claimant challenged the determination by the tribunal having felt aggrieved. The following sums have been awarded against the various components : 1. For purchasing medicines and investigation charges Rs.01,08,165/- 2. For doctors’ fees and other treatment charges Rs.1,20,000/- 3. For hiring of vehicle Rs. 10,000/- 4. For purchasing air ticket Rs. 47,000/- 5. For food and lodging Rs. 10,000/- 6. For retaining special nurses and the maid servant Rs. 5000/- 7. For loss of income Rs.01,08,000/- 8. For future loss of income Rs. 18,000/- 9. For damage of future prospect Rs. 50,000/- 10. For pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/- 4. There is no dispute about the road traffic accident caused for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. TR-03-2076(Mahindra Jeep), its insurance coverage on the day of accident by the respondent No.3 and the claimant’s getting serious injury leading to the locomotor disablement to the extent of 60%. It is also not in dispute that the claimant was a student of engineer at the time of accident. 5. Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant has submitted that the recorded evidence has not been duly appreciated in order to determine the various components of compensation. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel has further urged this court that while deciding the loss of income, the tribunal has arbitrarily considered the income of an engineering student with that of a domestic aid. Moreover, while determining the future prospect only Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded considering her to be a brilliant student in the engineering. For pain and sufferings only Rs.10,000/- has been awarded, which amount is, according to her, grossly inadequate and unrealistic. Ms. Moreover, while determining the future prospect only Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded considering her to be a brilliant student in the engineering. For pain and sufferings only Rs.10,000/- has been awarded, which amount is, according to her, grossly inadequate and unrealistic. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in V. Mekala versus M. Malathi & Another reported in (2014) 11 SCC 178 where the apex court had occasion to observe as under : “19. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid case, it would be just and proper for this Court, and keeping in mind her past results we take [sic]10,000/- as her monthly notional income for computation of just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of income. Further, the High Court has failed to take into consideration the future prospects of income based on the principles laid down by this Court in catena of cases referred to supra. Therefore, the appellant is justified in seeking for re-enhancement under this head as well and we hold that the claimantappellant is entitled to 50% increase under this head as per the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Santosh Devi (supra). The relevant paragraph reads as under : “13. In Sarala Verma’s (supra), another two Judge Bench considered various factors relevant for determining the compensation payable in cases involving motor accidents, noticed apparent divergence in the views expressed by this Court in different cases, referred to large number of precedents including the judgments in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 , Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd. 1951 AC 601, Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942 AC 601 and made an attempt to limit the exercise of discretion by the Tribunals and the High Courts in the matter of award of compensation by laying down strightjacket formula under different headings, some of which are enumerated below : (i) Addition to income for future prospects in Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision of annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. Therefore, taking both the aspects into account, the total amount of compensation under this head is calculated as Rs. 22,68,000/- [9[sic]10,000/- x 70/100 + 10,000 x 70/100 x 50/100) x 12 x 18] 20. The compensation under the head pain & suffering and mental agony was awarded by the High Court after recording concurrent finding with the award passed by the Tribunal. However, the courts below have not recorded the nature of the permanent disablement sustained by the appellant, while awarding [sic] 1,00,000/- under this head which is too meagre an amount and is contrary to the judgment of R.D. Hattangadi and Govind Yadav cases (supra). The relevant paragraphs of Govind Yadav case read as under: “25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meagre. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the tribunals and the courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. 26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do this normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs.1,50,000 in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.” Therefore, under this head the amount awarded should be enhanced to [sic]2,00,000/- as the Doctor-PW2 has opined that at the time of walking with support of crutches, the claimant-appellant will be suffering pain permanently. Therefore, under this head it has to be enhanced from [sic]1,00,000/- to [sic]2,00,000/-. 21. The loss of amenity and attendant charges awarded by the courts below at [sic]1,00,000/- is also too meagre an amount as the appellant has permanently lost her amenity of both the legs. For the purpose of walking, squatting, running and also studying throughout her life and particularly, at the advanced age, she will be requiring the attendant for giving assistance to attend the nature’s call and also at the time of sitting or moving around. Therefore, the compensation at this head is required to be enhanced from [sic]1,00,000/- to [sic]2,00,000/- based upon the principle laid down by this court in Govind Yadav case (supra), the relevant paragraph of which reads as under: “27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meagre. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of his life with one artificial leg. The appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like a normal human being and will not be able to enjoy life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. The appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like a normal human being and will not be able to enjoy life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000 for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.” 22. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of ‘Loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects’ at [sic]2,00,000/- is totally inadequate since her marriage prospect has substantially reduced and on account of permanent disablement she will be deprived of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it would be just and proper to enhance the compensation from [sic] 2,00,000/- to [sic] 3,00,000/-. In so far as, purchase of crutches periodically, it would be just and proper to award a sum of [sic]50,000/-. 23. Further, the accident had taken place on 11.4.2005 and the claimant-appellant, since then has been fighting for justice, first, in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, then the High Court and finally before us. Therefore, we consider that she is rightfully entitled to the cost of litigation as per the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha & Ors. [ (2014) 1 SCC 384 ]. Therefore, we award a sum of [sic]25000/- under the head of ‘cost of litigation’. 24. Thus, the claimant-appellant in this appeal is entitled to a total amount of [sic]30,93,000/- as compensation with an interest @ 9% per annum based on the principle laid down by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors. [ (2011) 14 SCC 481 ] from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.” Having heavily relied on V. Mekala (supra) it has been contended that in the name of ‘not making the award a bounty’, the just and reasonable compensation cannot be denied. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel for the appellant has therefore urged this court to enhance the compensation against the relevant components. 6. From the other side, Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has contended that the compensation as assessed by the tribunal is just and reasonable and supported by the evidence. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel for the appellant has therefore urged this court to enhance the compensation against the relevant components. 6. From the other side, Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has contended that the compensation as assessed by the tribunal is just and reasonable and supported by the evidence. He has also submitted that by imposing penal rate of interest, the tribunal has acted without any authority inasmuch as Section 171 of the M.V. Act does not authorise the tribunal to impose penal interest. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has relied on an apex court decision in Bijoy Kumar Dugar versus Bidya Dhar Dutta and Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 242 and Shyamwati Sharma and Others versus Karam Singh and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 378 . With all humility to the learned counsel, this court is of the opinion that those decisions of the apex court do not have any relevance in the present context. 7. For appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court has scrutinized the evidence afresh and finds that the assessment made largely on the documentary evidence. To a greater extent, it is to be noted that the determination is just and reasonable. However, from a fresh inquiry, the damage may be assessed in the following manner on a correction course having regard to the principles as developed by the apex court : 1. For cost of treatment Rs.2,30,000/- 2. For cost of transportation Rs. 20,000/- 3. For purchasing air ticket Rs. 48,000/- 4. For food and lodging Rs. 20,000/- 5. For retaining special nurse and maid servant Rs. 10,000/- 6. For loss of income Rs. 2,16,000/- [Notional income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.6000/- per month and thus she lost Rs.36,000/- during the period of treatment and she has also lost Rs. 6000 x 60 x 60/100 i.e. Rs.2,16,000/-] 7. For loss of personal amenities Rs.1,00,000/- 8. For pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- The total compensation thus would come to Rs.7,44,000/. The said awarded sum shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from 05.12.2012, the day of filing the claim-petition, till the payment. The respondent No.3 shall pay the said amount within 60 days from today on deducting the amount they have already paid. For pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- The total compensation thus would come to Rs.7,44,000/. The said awarded sum shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from 05.12.2012, the day of filing the claim-petition, till the payment. The respondent No.3 shall pay the said amount within 60 days from today on deducting the amount they have already paid. The penal interest as awarded @ 9% per annum stands quashed inasmuch as the tribunal does have authority to impose penal interest, retrospectively or otherwise, under Section 171 of the M.V. Act. 50% of the awarded sum shall be maintained in a fixed deposit for eight years, but the interest on quarterly basis would be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant. In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Draw the award in terms of the above determination. Send down the LCRs forthwith.