JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is an appeal preferred by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.1), West Tripura, Agartala vide judgment and order dated 30.06.2017, in connection with Case No. TS(MAC) 236 of 2013. 2. None appears for the appellant when the matter is taken up. Since the matter is related to motor accident claim cases, a beneficial legislation, I have taken up the matter for hearing in absence of learned counsel of the appellant. 3. Heard Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent No.1 as well as Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company i.e. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. 4. At the outset, I should say that since I have decided to dispose of the appeal in absence of learned counsel of the appellant, I have carefully and meticulously perused the entire records and have given my thoughtful consideration to the merits of the appeal. 5. The facts in brief of the projected case are that one Smt. Anita Sarkar, the claimant-appellant herein on 05.12.2012 at about 14:00 hours was returning to her house by an Auto rickshaw bearing No.TR-01-D-3686 and while the said Auto rickshaw reached near Khejurbagan, in front of the Ginger Hotel, the Auto rickshaw met with an accident and due to this, she suffered injuries. Her left leg was fractured and also other parts of her body suffered injury. She filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,68,000/-. 6. After receipt of the claim application, being noticed, the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company had appeared and contested the suit by filing written statements. 7. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties :- I. Did the claimant sustain any injury on 05.12.2012 at about 14-00 hours at Khejur Bagan in front of GINGER Hotel under East Agartala Police Station in a road traffic accident involving the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.TR-01-D-3686 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle? II. Is the claimant entitled to be compensated under the provision of the MV Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same? 8. II. Is the claimant entitled to be compensated under the provision of the MV Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same? 8. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.06.2017, the claimant-appellant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 9. In course of proceeding, the claimant has adduced evidence and exhibited the injury reports, prescriptions and vouchers. It is the case of the claimant that she was under treatment at G.B.P. Hospital for two months. She was an employee of Sulav International Social Service Organization and her monthly salary was Rs.6000/- per month. She submitted cash memos for purchase of medicines worth Rs.8000/-. It was further submitted that her relatives on different dates also purchased more medicines worth Rs.30,000/- but no cash memos could be produced as the relatives of the claimant were rustic and illiterate. I have noticed that the claimant has suffered 60% permanent disablement and the constituted medical board has certified the disability of the claimant to the extent of 60%. P.W.2, the Medical Officer also has adduced evidence in course of proceeding and the certificate was marked as Exbt.5. 10. The owner-respondent denied the accident stating that on the date of accident his vehicle did not ply on that route but it was plied on the route of Shalbagan to Narsinggarh via Gandhigram. However, he has stated that his vehicle was insured with the SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. on the relevant date of accident and as such compensation, if any, shall be paid by the SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. 11. The SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No.2 herein, also denied the accident and involvement of the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-D-3686. The Insurance Company has further stated that the amount of compensation as claimed by the claimant was exorbitant and she was not entitled to get such compensation. 12. The tribunal after considering the evidence and materials on record came to the conclusion that the Auto rickshaw vehicle bearing No. TR-01-D-3686 was being driven rashly and negligently resulting the accident of the claimant and the driver of the vehicle was found responsible for the cause of the said accident. The learned tribunal also was satisfied with the vehicular documents and the documents of the insurance policy and held that the insurance policy was valid at the time of accident. The learned tribunal also was satisfied with the vehicular documents and the documents of the insurance policy and held that the insurance policy was valid at the time of accident. 13. While calculating the compensation, the learned tribunal has accepted the claim of the claimant that she used to earn Rs.6000/- per month as an employee of Sulav International Social Service Organization. The claimant produced one identity card (Exbt.4) issued by Sulav International Social Service Organization as a proof that she was an employee of the said company. The claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and the learned tribunal has accepted the disability certificate issued in favour of the claimant indicating the extent of disability at 60%. Learned tribunal while quantifying the compensation, on the basis of extent of disability, has considered that the income of the claimant has been reduced to the extent of 60% disability due to the accident. So, 60% of the monthly income of Rs.6000/- on calculation comes to Rs.3600/-. Thus, the yearly loss of income of the claimant, on calculation, comes to Rs.43,200/-. In the disability certificate (Exbt.5), it is indicated that the said disability of 60% of the claimant will continue for 5(five) years. In that view, the learned tribunal multiplied Rs.43,200 by 5 (five) which on calculation comes to Rs.2,16,000/- and the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to get this amount for loss of her 60% income for 5(five) years. 13.1 The learned tribunal did not discuss the evidence in detail. Even he could not read the other aspects of the deposition of doctor, P.W.2 seriously to consider the future earning capacity of the claimant. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and it is an absurd proposition that human suffering and personal deprivation can be equated with money. The Court should not be so miser to award compensation, in other words, the compensation should be just and adequate and the Court should leave no stone unturned to apply its judicious mind to compensate a victim of road traffic accident. 13.2 I have perused the evidence of the doctor very minutely and it is found that in reply to a question he has deposed that “if the person is engaged for sweeping work then it is very difficult to perform his/her job”. 13.2 I have perused the evidence of the doctor very minutely and it is found that in reply to a question he has deposed that “if the person is engaged for sweeping work then it is very difficult to perform his/her job”. That leads this Court to infer that the injured victim shall lose his/her earning capacity for the rest of her remaining life. 13.3 The learned tribunal could not properly appreciate this material aspect of the evidence of the doctor and he proceeded to make award on the basis of the percentage of disability multiplied by period in terms of years of disability i.e. by 5(five) years. In my opinion, it is wrong appreciation and misreading of the evidence on record. In the case at hand, for the reason that it will not be possible for the victim-claimant to continue any hard work like sweeping, she has to suffer a total loss of her earning capacity. As such, multiplier method will be the appropriate course to be applied in the present case. 13.4 In the case of Sri Babul Podder Vs. Sri Narayan Chandra Das & Another [ MAC App No.117 of 2004], passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Mr. Deepak Kr. Gupta, as he then was, at Para 3, has observed thus :- “[3] It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few.” 14. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few.” 14. His Lordship has also cited catena of decisions in that case which I may also gainfully refer hereunder for adjudication of this case :- “The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent : “Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.” In the case of Mediana, (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held : “Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given.” In Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest held thus: “To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment.” In Phillips versus Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: “You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered.” Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases “should be such as to enable even a tort-feasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure”. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to “hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing”, should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held : “The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.” 15. The claimant-appellant herein, at the time of accident was aged about 35 years and was unmarried. She received 60% disability out of that accident. The claimant-appellant herein, at the time of accident was aged about 35 years and was unmarried. She received 60% disability out of that accident. She has lost her actual earning capacity throughout remaining period of her life. Today is the era of serious competition in the job markets. Job aspirants are enormous and job opportunities are very less. Employers of every establishments want maximum works from their employee. If one cannot work hard to the satisfaction of the employer, he or she will not be selected or continued, in a given case and the employers will not give any other thought but to oust him or her from the job/employment. In the case in hand, it is clear from the doctor’s certificate that it would not be possible for the victim of the accident to do hard work. So, there is every chance of losing her job and she will not be favoured with any engagement or employment under any employer. 15.1 So, on the basis of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier 16 will be applicable in this case. 15.2 Her monthly income was Rs.6000/- per month at the time of accident i.e. yearly it comes to Rs.72,000/-. Hence, for the 60% disability, the actual loss of her yearly earning comes to Rs.72,000/- X 60% = Rs.43,200/-. Now multiplying with 16, it comes to Rs. 43,200 X 16=Rs.6,91,200/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.6,91,200/- for the loss of her 60% disability. 16. The claimant was under treatment for two months in the G.B.P. Hospital. She has produced the discharge certificate (Exbt.2). She has produced some cash memos worth Rs.8000/- for purchase of medicines. However, she has stated that she spent more than Rs.30,000/- but her relatives could not keep those cash memos as they were rustic villagers. However, learned tribunal has considered the total expenditure of purchasing medicine at Rs.20,000/- and accordingly, awarded the same amount in favour of the claimant towards the cost of medicines. During her treatment of two months, her near relatives had to visit her everyday and they also had to engage special attendant for her proper care because she underwent surgery. However, learned tribunal has considered the total expenditure of purchasing medicine at Rs.20,000/- and accordingly, awarded the same amount in favour of the claimant towards the cost of medicines. During her treatment of two months, her near relatives had to visit her everyday and they also had to engage special attendant for her proper care because she underwent surgery. Now a days, at least Rs.200/- per day is to be paid to a special attendant for taking care of a patient like that of the claimant and accordingly, I award Rs.200/- per day for two months which comes to Rs.12,000/- for engaging a special attendant. More so, the relatives of the claimant had to visit her in the hospital everyday and for that purpose, I award Rs.6,000/- being the cost of conveyance. Learned tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for her pain and sufferings but in my opinion, since the claimant had undergone surgery and she had to suffer severe pain throughout those 60 days, I award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards her pain and sufferings. Learned tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for impairing the power of left leg of the claimant in which I do not interfere. 17. Having held so, the claimant-appellant is entitled to get (Rs. 6,91,200/- +Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 12,000/- + Rs. 6,000/- + Rs.25,000/-)= Rs.7,54,200/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty four thousand two hundred) as compensation in this case. 18. Learned tribunal held that since the Auto rickshaw vehicle bearing No.TR-01-D-3686 was involved in the said accident, the owner of the Auto rickshaw supposed to pay the compensation to the claimant-appellant. But as it revealed from the insurance policy (Exbt.A) that the vehicle of the respondent No.1 was insured with the SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. on the relevant date of accident, the liability to pay compensation to the claimant-appellant had to be shifted upon the SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. 19. In my opinion, the said finding of the learned tribunal does not suffer any infirmity and I hold that the SBI General Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner-respondent No.1. 20. In my opinion, the said finding of the learned tribunal does not suffer any infirmity and I hold that the SBI General Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner-respondent No.1. 20. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent No.2, SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the entire compensation amounting Rs.7,54,200/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty four thousand two hundred) to the claimant-appellant within a period of two months from the date of this judgment along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application before the tribunal on 01.06.2013 till the date of payment. 21. Learned tribunal has passed a direction if the amount is not paid within a period of 6(six) weeks, then the insurance company will be liable to pay penal interest @ 8% per annum after expiry of 6(six) weeks till the payment is made. But imposition of penalty interest is illegal and I set aside this direction passed by the learned tribunal. 22. It is made clear that out of total compensation, 30% of the amount shall be released in favour of the claimant-appellant and the rest 70% of the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme in the name of claimant-appellant in a nationalized bank. However, the claimant-appellant will be entitled to withdraw the interest out of that deposited amount of 70% as and when she requires. 23. The appeal accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. 24. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.