JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. S. D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. None appears for the respondent No.1 despite due notice from this court. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 30.04.2012 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 222 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.3 awarding a sum of Rs.10,34,050/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing viz. 19.05.2012 till the payment is made. 3. Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has at the outset submitted that the entire awarded sum in terms of the judgment and award dated 30.04.2012 has been deposited by the respondent No.2. But this appeal is structured on the objection relating to the quantum of the compensation on various components. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has taken this court to the impugned judgment to refer the grounds on which this appeal is structured. 4. There is no dispute that the claimant on 21.02.2012 suffered a road traffic accident for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-G-1750 (four wheeler goods carrier) and the appellant was rushed to the hospital for saving her life. She was admitted in the AGMC and GBP Hospital at Agartala on 21.02.2012 and discharged on 23.02.2012. 5. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that considering the nature of the injury and its impact on the person of the appellant, the component of compensation in respect of loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is grossly inadequate and unjust. He has further submitted that while determining the compensation for disfiguration of her face, it assessed to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said amount is disproportionate and inadequate. That apart, Mr. Roy, learned counsel has submitted that the appellant has suffered functional disability and in future, she might not recover from such functional disability. For this component, the tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation, but denying the same, it caused miscarriage of justice. 6. From the other side, Mr. The said amount is disproportionate and inadequate. That apart, Mr. Roy, learned counsel has submitted that the appellant has suffered functional disability and in future, she might not recover from such functional disability. For this component, the tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation, but denying the same, it caused miscarriage of justice. 6. From the other side, Mr. S. D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence regarding the loss of functional disability based on the impact of injury that the appellant suffered in the said accident. He has referred to the order of this court dated 06.04.2018 whereby this court asked the appellant to be reassessed after 10.07.2018 on which date, she was supposed to be examined as to whether the injury suffered has aggravated or not. 7. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has in this regard further submitted that since the appellant could not take the original disability certificate which is lying with the tribunal records, the District Disability Board refused to examine the appellant. This court is taken aback on hearing this kind of submission. If the appellant had approached this court, the original disability certificate would have been returned. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has candidly admitted that no such attempt was taken on their behalf. Therefore, this is a case of non-appearance before the District Disability Board for purpose of assessment, which was directed by the order dated 06.04.2018. Therefore, this court would not set out for appreciating the plea raised on the aggravated suffering of the victim. 8. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as scrutinized the record of evidence as produced before this court this court is of the view that the nature of injury as suffered by the appellant has left a serious permanent skull disability. Though, on initial assessment the disability has been assessed at 30%. Having due regard to this aspect of the matter and the medical observation made in the clinical report of the appellant carried out on 11.07.2012 [part of Exbt.1 series] this court is of the view that the appellant has lost alert, meaning the functioning of the brain. All the doctors after clinically examining the appellant has observed that her reaction was sluggish meaning jeopardy in the process of recognition. All the doctors after clinically examining the appellant has observed that her reaction was sluggish meaning jeopardy in the process of recognition. That apart, the disability certificate as produced in the tribunal shows that the disability was temporarily determined at 30% till 10.07.2018. The said disability has been considered as the factor for determining the compensation, even though that was subject to reassessment after 10.07.2018. As stated earlier, even though, an assessment was directed by this court, the appellant did not succeed in availing the statutes from the District Disability Board. From the disability certificate and the discharge summary of Medica Superspecialty Hospital, Kolkata it appears that the appellant has been progressing well from her ailment called post- traumatic-decompressive craniectomy defect. The disability board has also noticed the disfiguration by way of the squinted eyes and also observed that she lost her vision and she has been categorized for low vision. 9. Having regard to all these aspects, this court is of the view that the best evidence that could have been produced has not been produced before the tribunal as well as before this court. However, for loss of amenity in life, the amount that has been awarded, according to the court, should be enhanced at Rs.4,00,000/- from Rs.3,00,000/- and for disfiguration as the appellant is an unmarried girl, her chance of marriage has become uncertain, the amount should be raised to Rs.3,00,000/-, so that the appropriate treatment can be carried out by the appellant. True it is that a projected loss in the earning of the girl could have been assessed by the tribunal but since the disability certificate was for a very limited period, the tribunal has not made any assessment on that account. This court finds that there is no infirmity in the said finding of the tribunal. 10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the total compensation that the appellant would get is Rs.12,35,050/- with interest @ 9% from 19.05.2012 till the amount is paid. 11. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has categorically stated that the entire awarded sum in terms of the judgment and award dated 30.04.2014 has been paid by the respondent No.2. 11. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has categorically stated that the entire awarded sum in terms of the judgment and award dated 30.04.2014 has been paid by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 shall deposit the remainder of the amount in terms of enhancement made by this court in the award within a period of two months from today in the tribunal but the said amount shall not carry any interest if the amount is paid within the said stipulated period. After the deposit is made in terms of the mode of payment, the appellant would be entitled to receive 50% the amount whereas the rest would remain invested in the fixed deposit scheme for a period of 5(five) years. In the result, this appeal stands partly allowed. Draw the award accordingly. Send down the LCRs.