JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. No one appears for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is the second round of litigation in this Court, in respect of MACT Case No. 24/2015. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the claimant was injured in a bus accident wherein he suffered spinal injuries. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed MACT Case No. 24/2015 before the MACT Aizawl, claiming compensation for the injury suffered by him. The MACT Aizawl disposed of MACT Case No. 24/2015 vide Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, wherein it awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 3,33,486/- to the respondent No. 1, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 4. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded to him on the basis of the Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, passed in MACT Case No. 24/2015, filed MAC Appeal No. 3/2017. The ground of challenge made by the respondent No. 1 to the Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, passed in MACT Case No. 24/2015 was that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the non-pecuniary damages that were to be awarded to the appellant, as the subject matter was related to personal injury. The second ground of challenge taken by the respondent No. 1 was that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the alleged fact that the respondent No. 1 was earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum from his Rice Mill. MAC Appeal No. 3/2017 was disposed of by this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 24.05.2017, by holding that there was no infirmity with the decision of the learned Tribunal in taking the income of the respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month (Notional income) . With respect to the other ground of challenge taken by the respondent No. 1 to the Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, this Court directed the MACT to take further evidence and if it was found that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to payment of non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal was to take a decision for payment of compensation on the same. In compliance with the Judgment & Order 24.05.2017, passed in MAC Appeal No. 3/2017, the learned Tribunal took further evidence and thereafter passed the Judgment & Award dated 20.09.2017 in MACT Case No. 24/2015 wherein it held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damages, awarded Rs. 5,50,000/- under the head, non-pecuniary damages. 5. The amount of compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary Head by the learned Tribunal is as follows:- (1) Future Medical Expenses = Rs. 2,00,000/- (2) Physical Pain and Suffering = Rs. 2,00,000/- (3) Loss of Amenities = Rs. 1,50,000/- Total = Rs. 5,50,000/-. 6. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 26.03.2015 till final payment of the amount. 7. The Insurance Company has challenged the second Judgment & Award dated 20.09.2017, passed in MACT Case No. 24/2015 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to payment of compensation with regard to future medical expenses, as the evidence of the Doctor, who had examined the respondent No. 1, is to the effect that there would be no further treatment required on the legs of the respondent No. 1. 8. The counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of the Doctor having clearly stated that the respondent No. 1 would not require any further treatment on his legs, the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 2 lakhs for future medical expenses. 9. In support of his submission, The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr, reported in 2014 5 SCC 330 . The appellants counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal erred in granting 9% interest on the awarded amount of compensation as the interest rates given by Banks on fixed deposits, is around 7% per annum. 10. Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimants has submitted that the evidence of the Doctor, when read as a whole, would go to show that there cannot be any certainty with regard to whether the respondent No. 1 would not incur any future medical expenses. He also submits that the injury of the respondent No. 1 is serious as one of his legs has become shorten. 11. He also submits that the injury of the respondent No. 1 is serious as one of his legs has become shorten. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also submits that the evidence of the Doctor does not prove that there cannot be any infection on the leg of the respondent No. 1 in the future, or that he would not require any future medical expenses in the future. Thus, there was no infirmity in the learned Tribunal awarding compensation for future medical expenses, which could occur. He, accordingly, submits that impugned Judgment & Award dated 20.09.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 24/2015 should be upheld. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 13. The respondent No. 1 has suffered 20% permanent disability due to a vehicle accident as opined by the Doctor who examined the respondent No. 1. The evidence of the Doctor is also to the effect that the respondent No. 1 was operated 2 (two) times on 23.11.2011 and 19.11.2012 under his supervision, wherein metal implants were made on his legs and he suffered elongated uneven length on his legs due to infection from his broken legs. The Doctor has also stated that there will be no further treatment required so far as the petitioners legs are concerned and that the respondent No. 1 will not face any difficulty apart from whatever he is facing now. 14. A perusal of the Doctors evidence, which was recorded on 12.07.2017, goes to show that in the opinion of the Doctor, there can be no further increase in the percentage of disability of the respondent No. 1 beyond 20%. 15. The evidence of the Doctor taken on 12.07.2017 is reproduced below:- "Examination-in-chief of the Claimants Witness Dr. H. Lalnghakliana. 1. It is a fact that I had examined the injured Sh. J. Lalhluna on 05.11.2011. 2. It is a fact that S. J. Lalhluna was operated two times on 23.11.2011 and 19.11.2012 under my supervision. 3. It is a fact that metal implants were made on his legs and that he has suffered elongated/uneven length on his legs due to the infections from his broken legs. 4. It is a fact that if the metal implants causes problems in the future of the patient would require further medical treatment which could extend to removal of the implants. 5. 4. It is a fact that if the metal implants causes problems in the future of the patient would require further medical treatment which could extend to removal of the implants. 5. It is a fact that as a result of the shortening of one of the legs, the patient can suffer spinal related problems. 6. It is a fact that the shortening on one side of his legs was a result of infections that had occurred in the injured area which hampered the union of the bones. Ext. C-10 (a) is my signature. XXX by Counsel for O.P. 2 Insurance Company 1. In my opinion there will be no further increase in the percentage of disability beyond 20%. 2. I arrived at 20% disability of Sh. J. Lalhluna based on the Disability Assessment guidelines issued by the Miniority of Social Justice & Empowerment vide notification dt. 01.06.2001. 3. It is a fact that Sh. J. Lalhluna used to come to Civil Hospital, Aizawl for check-up. He has improved a lot and he can walk on his own even though he has some difficulty and is still limping. 4. I think that he will not face any difficulty apart from whatever he is facing now. 5. There is no further treatment required so far as his legs is concerned. 6. I have told Sh. J. Lalhluna that no further is required if he does not face any problem as far as his legs is concerned." 16. Whether the respondents No. 1s injury requires any future medical expenses has to be considered on the basis of the opinion of the Doctor and cannot be based on speculation. Accordingly, as the opinion of the Doctor, who is an expert in his field, is to the effect that there is no further treatment required so far as his legs are concerned and that he will not face any difficulty apart from whatever he is facing now, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court could not have given any compensation on account of future medical expenses. The question of whether the respondent No. 1 would require any future medical expense has been answered by the Doctor. The Doctor has categorically stated that no further treatment is required. The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is only based on speculation. The question of whether the respondent No. 1 would require any future medical expense has been answered by the Doctor. The Doctor has categorically stated that no further treatment is required. The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is only based on speculation. No doubt the respondent No. 1 has suffered an injury. Accordingly, compensation could not have been granted for future medical expenses by the learned Tribunal, when the Doctor himself has given his opinion to the effect that there would be no further treatment required. In the case of Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhanaka & Ors, reported in 2009 6 SCC 1 , the Apex Court has held at para 88 as follows:- "We must emphasise that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The "adequate compensation" that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned." 17. Accordingly, in view of the above reasons, the award of compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs by the learned MACT under future medical expenses vide Judgment & Award dated 20.09.2017 in MACT Case No. 24/2015 is not justified and accordingly, the said portion of the said Judgment & Award is set aside. The claimant is thus entitled to get compensation only under non-pecuniary Heads as follows:- (1) Physical Pain and Suffering = Rs. 2,00,000/- (2) Loss of Amenities = Rs. 1,50,000/- Total = Rs. 3,50,000/-. 19. The appellant is thus directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 26.03.2015 within 1 (one) month from today in the Tribunal for onward disbursement to the respondent No. 1. 20. 1,50,000/- Total = Rs. 3,50,000/-. 19. The appellant is thus directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 26.03.2015 within 1 (one) month from today in the Tribunal for onward disbursement to the respondent No. 1. 20. The challenge made by the appellant to the 9% interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is not interfered with by this Court in this appeal, as the appellant has not made any averment to that effect in his appeal petition. The impugned Judgment & Award dated 20.09.2017 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 24/2015 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. 21. The appeal is accordingly allowed.