JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard, Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, National Insurance Company Limited, but there is no representation from the remaining respondents despite due notice from this court. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the judgment and award dated 28.03.2015 delivered in T.S.(MAC) 197 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati District, Udaipur. 3. As regards the foundational facts viz. the accident that occurred on 28.01.2011 for rash and negligent driving of the Motor Bike bearing No.TR-03-C-5621 (Hero Honda) and the fracture injury on the right leg by the claimant-appellant there is no dispute. It is also not in dispute that the claimant-appellant received the fracture injury in the left leg, back side and the right hand including other bleeding injury over her person. When the claimant-appellant was dashed by the said Motor Bike she fell down on the road and lost consciousness. She was immediately rushed to the GBP Hospital, Agartala where she was treated from 28.01.2011 to 04.03.2011 as indoor patient. On 18.11.2011, she again took admission in the GBP hospital and received treatment there till 09.12.2011. During that time there was surgical intervention for interlocking, nailing with bone grafting etc. At the time of discharge on 09.12.2011 the claimant-appellant was advised to attend at the out-patient department of the GBP Hospital from time to time for dressing. But her condition was not improving and again she was admitted on 18.05.2012 in the GBP hospital and she was admitted there till 26.05.2012. In the intermittent period the claimant-appellant was treated by the doctors in their private chambers. According to her, the accident could only take place because of the negligent driving of the Motor Bike [the vehicle] bearing No.TR-03-C-5621 (Hero Honda). The claimant-appellant has claimed that she had monthly income of Rs.10,000/- before the accident and for being confined for treatment she had monthly lost Rs.1,20,000/-. That apart, she spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for treatment. On such components the compensation as claimed by the appellant was computed at Rs.7,00,000/- in total. The National Insurance Company Limited has not denied that the said Motor Bike was insured with them for the period from 10.07.2010 to 09.07.2011 whereas the accident took place on 28.01.2011. 4. That apart, she spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for treatment. On such components the compensation as claimed by the appellant was computed at Rs.7,00,000/- in total. The National Insurance Company Limited has not denied that the said Motor Bike was insured with them for the period from 10.07.2010 to 09.07.2011 whereas the accident took place on 28.01.2011. 4. Whatever the compensation is computed by the tribunal or the other courts may be revisited and revised by the superior courts. That apart, the insurer-respondent is bound by the contract of insurance to indemnify the owner of the vehicle i.e. the original respondent No.1 who died during pendency and presently represented by the substituted legal heirs. 5. Having recorded the evidence for deciding the principal issue that whether the accident took place for rash and negligent driving of the said Motor Bike and whether the claimant-appellant is entitled to get the compensation for receiving the injuries from the said accident. 6. Having appreciated the evidence as led by the claimant-appellant the tribunal has awarded the compensation, in aggregate of the components, as follows : (i) Rs.24,000/- for loss of income for a period of six months (ii) Rs. 45,000/- for medical treatment excluding the nurses’ charge of Rs.3000/- which has been separately accounted. (iii) Rs.5,000/- as the transportation cost from the house of the claimant-appellant to the GBP Hospital (iv) Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering Thus, the total compensation as awarded by the tribunal has come to Rs.97,000/- which sum has been directed to be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the application i.e. 17.08.2012. In default of paying the compensation within a period of two months, the rate of interest would enhance to 9% per annum as a penal measure. 7. Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has been highly critical of the judgment, particularly in respect of the assessment made for the medical expenses. According to Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel only for purchase of medicine, a sum of Rs.33,845/- has been spent and such expenditure has been supported by the documentary evidence. An additional amount of Rs.11,155/- has been awarded as the doctors’ fees, investigation charges etc. which is not only inadequate but grossly unjust. She has further contended that the tribunal has assessed the loss of earning for a period of six months when the petitioner could not pursue her work. An additional amount of Rs.11,155/- has been awarded as the doctors’ fees, investigation charges etc. which is not only inadequate but grossly unjust. She has further contended that the tribunal has assessed the loss of earning for a period of six months when the petitioner could not pursue her work. The loss has been calculated at Rs.4,000/- per month. Thus, for the loss of income Rs.24,000/- has been assessed. 8. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel urged that from the medical records, it would be evident that from 28.01.2011 to 09.12.2011, the claimant-appellant was treated in the GBP hospital with intermittent releases. It thus indicates that she was not fully recuperated in the intervening time. Later on, again the claimant-appellant was admitted on 18.05.2012 and discharged on 26.05.2012. Therefore, the period is more than one and half years. It cannot be accepted when the claimant-appellant was being treated by the hospitals that she had earned any amount months approximately. The tribunal has only computed the loss for six months. She has urged this court to award the loss of income at least for eighteen months. That apart, Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel has criticized the cost for transportation. The cost as assessed is totally absurd and pain and suffering from grievous and fracture injuries, whereas the compensation at Rs.20,000/- is absolutely inadequate, in the given circumstances. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel has strongly persuaded this court to intervene in the assessment for awarding a just and reasonable compensation. 9. From the other side, Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the assessment of the compensation. The sum of compensation is well thought and the claimant-appellant cannot expect beyond what has been assessed by the tribunal. That apart, in response to the submission made by Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel that no amount has been given for future treatment, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that there is no medical record or opinion that in future, the claimant-appellant would require any further treatment. In such circumstances the tribunal has rightly discarded the claim for future treatment. 10. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the insurer-respondent has finally submitted that by travelling beyond the jurisdiction as conferred by Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal has imposed penal interest retrospectively. As such the said direction is required to be interfered by this court. 11. 10. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the insurer-respondent has finally submitted that by travelling beyond the jurisdiction as conferred by Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal has imposed penal interest retrospectively. As such the said direction is required to be interfered by this court. 11. Having appreciated the submission advanced by the learned counsel, this court would only confine appreciation restricted to the means of determining the compensation having due regard to the foundational facts, which are not in dispute. 12. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel has correctly stated that from the medical reports it appears that the treatment continued at least for eighteen months for the fracture injuries suffered in vulnerable part of the body. As such the claimant-appellant is entitled to get the loss of income for 18(eighteen) months. Thus the loss of income would be Rs.72,000/-. So far the medical expenses is concerned, only Rs.33,845/- has been supported by the vouchers, but there is no vouchers for doctor’s fees. Moreover, the substantive part of the treatment was carried out in the GBP hospital which is a government hospital and for treatment there, no fees for consultation is charged. However, the claimant-appellant has submitted that during the intermittent period she attended the private clinics of the doctor for taking advice. But since there is no documentary evidence, this court is unable to increase the awarded amount of Rs.45,000/-. But so far the charge of the nurses is concerned, it is extremely low in relation to the period of hospitalization. It evinces that the appellant was admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient firstly from 21.01.2011 to 04.03.2011 (35 days), thereafter again the claimant-appellant was hospitalized on 29.11.2011 and she was discharged on 09.12.2011 (10 days). Further, she was hospitalized on 18.05.2012 and discharged on 26.05.2012(7 days). Thus, the period of total hospitalization is 52 days. If the charge of keeping the nurse even for one shift is computed at Rs.300/-. Hence, it is awarded. The charge for nurses comes to Rs.15,600/-. So far the cost of transportation as assessed by the tribunal it is extremely inadequate. It is therefore enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. That apart, the compensation for pain and suffering is again on the lower side and is required to be enhanced by this court. For pain and suffering the amount has to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 13. So far the cost of transportation as assessed by the tribunal it is extremely inadequate. It is therefore enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. That apart, the compensation for pain and suffering is again on the lower side and is required to be enhanced by this court. For pain and suffering the amount has to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 13. However, this court is of the view and Mr. Gautam, learned counsel is absolutely right unless there is a strong medical advice in respect of the future treatment, usually the tribunal should not provide any compensation in that respect. It cannot be by guesswork. It should be supported by the opinion of the medical expert. But such advice is not available in the record. In view of the redetermination of the components for determining just and reasonable compensation, the sum comes to Rs.2,2,600/-. The said amount shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 17.08.2012 till the payment is made. 14. The respondent No.3 shall pay the entire sum as awarded by this judgment and order with a period of two months from today. However, if any amount has been paid in the meanwhile, that shall be deducted at the time of making the deposit in the tribunal. In the result, this appeal stands allowed. There shall be no additional costs. Send down the records forthwith.