JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2016 passed by the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) No. 305 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of claimant-student, aged about 22 years, who has been suffering from 90 % disability. 2. At the very outset of hearing Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the solitary ground which needs to be considered in this appeal is whether the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the ratio of all the decisions of the Apex Court in V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another, 2014 ACJ 1441 in the context of the present case. Taking attention of this Court the learned counsel submits that in the case of Mekala (supra) the Apex Court has considered the brilliants of the injured victim while considering the multiplicand at Rs. 10,000/-. 3. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel submits that in the instant case the claimant had passed matriculation with 3rd division in the year 2012 and he was admitted to one diploma course. The crux of the submission of learned counsel is that the learned Tribunal ought not to have determined the amount of compensation considering the income of the claimant-victim at Rs. 10,000/- per month applying the principle of Mekala (supra). Her contention is that the student having passed matriculation with 3rd division cannot be compared with a student of brilliance like Mekala who stood first in class XI examination. 4. In the view of the submission of learned counsel, the question in this appeal to be determined is: “Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 10,000/- which he could have earned had he not been shattered with the accident?” There is no other issue involved in this appeal. 5. Having considered the undisputed fact of accident, it is necessary to consider the nature of injury the claimant has suffered on 17.04.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. TR.01-S-1517 (Tipper). After being faced with severe injury on his persons, the claimant was first brought to the GBP Hospital, Agartala where he was admitted as an indoor patient on and from 17.04.2014 to 19.04.2014. After being faced with severe injury on his persons, the claimant was first brought to the GBP Hospital, Agartala where he was admitted as an indoor patient on and from 17.04.2014 to 19.04.2014. As his condition appeared to be precarious he was referred to SSKM hospital, Kolkata but due to non availability of the seat, claimant-petitioner was admitted in the National Neurosciences Centre, Kolkata on 19.04.2014 where he was treated up to 03.06.2014. Thereafter considering his condition, he was taken to the CMC Hospital, Vellore, where he was treated up to 16.09.2014. It is very clear case of the claimant that his treatment is still continuing in the OPD of GBP Hospital as well as under various private health clinics. Ultimately, the claimant has filed a claim petition of Rs. 1,72,16,000/- in all together. 6. A police case was also registered vide Ranirbazar P.S. Case No. 14 of 2014 dated 03.05.2014 under Section 279/338 of IPC. 7. During the course of proceeding, the appellant- New India Insurance Company limited as well as the owner of the vehicle No. TR 01-S-1517 (Tipper) contested the suit by filing their respective written statements denying the claim of the claimant. 8. After perusal of the materials on record the learned Tribunal has held that the accident has been proved and it was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. TR 01-S-1517 (Tipper), the fact of which the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed in this appeal. 9. The issue No. 2 as framed by the learned counsel is: “Whether the claimant-petitioner is entitled to get any compensation as prayed for and if so, to what extent and who shall be held liable to pay the same?” 10. To decide the quantum of compensation the learned Tribunal placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 755 , wherein it was considered that: “Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money: whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money: whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary dames may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning or profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk or run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened and (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” 11. Applying the aforestated observations in Hattangadi (supra) and considering the aforesaid principle, the learned Tribunal has assessed the pecuniary loss on account of the medical bills at Rs. 7,16,879/-. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by the respondents. The learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the head of pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs. 83,592/- was assessed against the conveyance and special diet. The learned Tribunal has determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 39,16,471/- for loss of earning capacity. 12. The learned Tribunal has determined the loss of income on account of disability which he would have earned if he was not faced with accident at Rs. 10,000/- per month and considering the functional disability of the claimant as 90 % on the basis of the certificate issued by the State Physical Disability Board. Accordingly, the loss of earning capacity came to Rs. 9,000/- per month i.e. 90 % of Rs. 10,000/-. The core question as raised in this appeal is whether the learned Tribunal correctly decided the loss of earning capacity of the claimant. The claimant-petitioner has also filed a cross objection claiming enhancement of compensation which is to be dealt with separately after determination of this issue. 13. 9,000/- per month i.e. 90 % of Rs. 10,000/-. The core question as raised in this appeal is whether the learned Tribunal correctly decided the loss of earning capacity of the claimant. The claimant-petitioner has also filed a cross objection claiming enhancement of compensation which is to be dealt with separately after determination of this issue. 13. The fundamental question is whether the loss of earning capacity of a student having passed matriculation in 3rd division and diploma course can be equated with the student who prosecutes B. Tech engineering degree. The submission of the learned counsel is that the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of income of the victim claimant at Rs. 4500/- per month instead of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aspects that whether the income of a person will solely be determined on his/her academic qualification. In Mekala (supra) she was studying in the 11th standard and ranked first in her school when she sustained grievous injury and became permanently disabled. Considering the facts that she could have acquired a professional degree and procure a well paid job either in public or private sector and subsequent revision of pay scale, increment, promotional benefits etc. Simultaneously, I should not lose my sight to the rapid societal changes which influence the economic scenario and job prospects due to recession and uncertainty in respect of employment, both in Government and Private sector. A change of mind-set is also being noticed of late, that a young man instead of looking for government job prefers to be entrepreneur even with lesser qualification. In our country, there are so many instances that a person with less academic career has become a successful industrialist and even participated in generating the economic growth of the nation. In the instant case, though the claimant has secured 3rd division in matriculation examination, but he did not stop his studies rather, he was admitted in a diploma course which might have paved a way to acquire a higher degree. The claimant also could have been a successful entrepreneur. The matter would have been different if it was found that he is a daily wage earner. 15. Thus, in my opinion, academic qualification cannot be the sole criteria to determine the merits of a person. The claimant also could have been a successful entrepreneur. The matter would have been different if it was found that he is a daily wage earner. 15. Thus, in my opinion, academic qualification cannot be the sole criteria to determine the merits of a person. As such, it would not be very difficult for the present claimant-victim to earn more than Rs. 10,000/- per month in near future and the Tribunal has not committed any error in fixing the loss of earning capacity of the victim-claimant at Rs. 10,000/- per month. 16. The Apex Court in Mekala (supra) nowhere has stated that a person with less academic qualification could not earn more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. Also we should not be oblivious that there is gradual fall in the value of money which also requires continuing re-assessment to arrive at a decision keeping in mind that the spirit and object of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act is to award just and reasonable compensation which should be adequate, considering the nature of the injuries, as in the present case as well as the other important facets of life. From the disability certificate, it is clear that the victim claimant has suffered 90 % disability. His lower portion has become totally inactive due to Traumatic Paraplegia and this condition is non-progressive. A person with such disability could not even sit or stand up without escort. 17. PW-2, the doctor, who is the Member-Secretary of Locomotor Specialist, in his evidence has supported the present condition of the victim. The learned Tribunal has considered the rate of disability as 90%. 18. Thus, in the light of above discussion, my answer is, the academic qualification cannot be the sole criteria to determine the merits of a person and there should not be any discrimination in determining the loss of earning capacity on account of disability occurred due to road traffic accident, particularly, when claimant-victims are students. So, the decision of the learned Tribunal in regard to loss of earning capacity of the present claimant-victim @ Rs. 10,000/- per month deserves no interference in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the quantification against the head of loss of income on account of disability at Rs. 29,16,000/- as assessed by learned Tribunal is affirmed. CO (FA) No. 05 of 2017 19. 10,000/- per month deserves no interference in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the quantification against the head of loss of income on account of disability at Rs. 29,16,000/- as assessed by learned Tribunal is affirmed. CO (FA) No. 05 of 2017 19. The claimant has preferred a cross appeal, which is registered as CO (FA) No. 05 of 2017, whereunder he has claimed enhancement of compensation. Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the cross-objector-claimant submits that the determination of the amount of compensation against the head of pain and suffering, disfiguration of body are on extreme lower side and it should be enhanced. He further submits that due to his functional and physical disability the cross-objector-claimant is unable to even sit and move on his own and he always requires an escort for the entire remaining period of his life for day and night in two shifts and for this, the cross-objector-claimant needs to invest minimum Rs. 4000/- per month towards engaging such escort and attendants. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel further submits that cross-objector-claimant is entitled to get a substantial amount as award towards loss of amenities in life particularly when at the time of accident he was attaining the age of 22 years which is the prime time of the career of a youth. He is deprived of leading a conjugal life for which also he is entitled to be compensated. He further submits that the Tribunal has not made any award toward cost of engaging of attendants during the period of his treatment as indoor patient in different hospitals and the cross-objector is entitled to substantial compensation on this head. 20. The learned counsel of the cross-objector contends that the award passed by the Tribunal for future medical expenses was wholly inadequate. 21. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions of the learned counsel of the cross-objector/claimant on those aspects where just and adequate compensations were not awarded in the present case. I have given a glimpse of the evidence of Dr. Dipti Bikash Roy who was examined as PW-2. In his evidence, he has stated that both legs of the claimant/cross-objector were traumatic paraplegia and this condition is non-progressive. Due to such disability he could not even sit and stand-up without escort. He identified the disability certificate issued by the District Disability Medical Board, marked as Exbt-14. 22. Dipti Bikash Roy who was examined as PW-2. In his evidence, he has stated that both legs of the claimant/cross-objector were traumatic paraplegia and this condition is non-progressive. Due to such disability he could not even sit and stand-up without escort. He identified the disability certificate issued by the District Disability Medical Board, marked as Exbt-14. 22. In view of this alarming condition of the claimant, it is clear that the claimant/ cross-objector, who is aged only about 22 years, is worst than a dead. He is the closing chapter of his generation. The person with such disability is more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person, like the present claimant comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim/claimant but even more so on his family member and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity as the Apex Court held in Nijam's Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 . 23. Since the claimant even cannot sit and standup on his own, meaning thereby, he is completely ruined and crippled throughout his remaining period of life. He is to bear the agonies of life till his death. It will be not unnatural that a person with such disability is being constantly humiliated and he will be a ridiculous person in the society and ultimately will be a laughing stock to others. 24. I reiterate the principle laid down in the case of R.D. Hattangadi (supra) and applying this principle, I have no other alternative but to revisit and reconsider the various heads for which the claimant/cross-objector was not awarded just and adequate amount. 25. In the light of the above discussion, I have persuaded myself to award Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to disfiguration of the body of the claimant/cross-objector. For pain and suffering as well as trauma which will be undergone by the claimant/cross- objector throughout his life, I award Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Jakir Hussain vs. Sabir and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 . Further, as he is not in a position to move at all an additional amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Jakir Hussain vs. Sabir and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 . Further, as he is not in a position to move at all an additional amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and happiness has been awarded. 26. The learned Tribunal has committed error in not awarding the expenses which he might have incurred for engaging attendants. It is very natural that a patient, like the claimant/ cross-objector that during his continuation of treatment he had to engage at least two attendants, one in day shift as well as another in night shift and as such, for the said attendants I award Rs. 40,000/-. Considering the disability of the claimant, according to me, the claimant needs attendants throughout his remaining period of life and for this I award Rs. 1,50,000/- only as lump sum. 27. The Tribunal has not considered that throughout the remaining period of his life he needs treatment. As such, in my opinion, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- placing reliance upon Jakir Hussian (supra) should be awarded considering the expenses which the claimant has to incur for his future medical treatment. 28. The claim of the cross-objector/claimant is pending since 2014 before the Tribunal as well as this Court and I am of the view to award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards cost incurred during pendency of this appeal. 29. As regards to the rate of interest, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has correctly held that the compensation amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum, which is in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in MCD vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn. (2011) 14 SCC 481 . Accordingly, the award of interest @ 9% per annum is affirmed. 30. In the result, while I affirm the decision of the learned Tribunal in regard to medicine and medical treatment (Rs. 7,16,879/-), conveyance and special diet (Rs. 83,592/-) and loss of income on account of disability (Rs. (2011) 14 SCC 481 . Accordingly, the award of interest @ 9% per annum is affirmed. 30. In the result, while I affirm the decision of the learned Tribunal in regard to medicine and medical treatment (Rs. 7,16,879/-), conveyance and special diet (Rs. 83,592/-) and loss of income on account of disability (Rs. 29,16,000/-), I modify the award in regard to the amount of compensation against the head (i) of pain and suffering and disfigurement of body and I further add amount of compensations in regard to the discussions made above which will be reproduced in the following table indicating categorically the different heads:- S. No. Particulars Amount of compensation 1. Pain and suffering as well as trauma Rs. 1,50,000/- 2. Disfiguration of the body Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and happiness Rs. 1,50,000/- 4. Attendants charges during treatment Rs. 40,000/- 5. Attendants charges for future treatment. Rs. 1,50,000/- 6. Future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- 7. Medicine and medical treatment Rs. 7,16,879/- 8. Conveyance and special diet Rs. 83,592/- 9. Loss of earning capacity on account of disability Rs. 29,16,000/- 10. Expenses during pendency of appeal Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 46,26,471/- 31. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimant by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs. 46,26,471/- as per amount awarded against different heads mentioned above in the table along with interest @ 9% per annum on compensation awarded by this Court from the date of filing of the claim-petition till the date of payment. 32. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount as indicated above before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and shall submit the compliance report for perusal of this Court. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is requested to monitor the matter so that the claimant/injured can deposit the entire amount of money in his account and simultaneously, the learned Tribunal will ensure the release of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only in favour of the claimant and remaining amount, of money will be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank, at least for a period of ten years. Needless to say the claimant will be entitled to withdraw the interest amount out of the total fixed deposit amount time to time considering his needs. 33. In the result, MAC. Needless to say the claimant will be entitled to withdraw the interest amount out of the total fixed deposit amount time to time considering his needs. 33. In the result, MAC. Appeal No. 66 of 2016 filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. is dismissed being devoid of merit. The related cross objection bearing No. CO (FA) No. 05 of 2017 filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent as indicated above. No costs.