JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant seeking enhancement of the award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the injury suffered by him. 3. Brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The appellant was engaged as a Driver of Tripper bearing Registration No. AS-24/6842 by his employer i.e. Tantia Construction Limited (respondent No.1). On 12.03.2008 at about 5.10 pm, while unloading earth from the Tripper at Bandarkhal, all of a sudden due to mechanical defect, the Tripper moved backwards and fell into a deep gorge. As a result, the appellant sustained fracture of shaft of right femur and abrasion on right eye. He was immediately taken to Borkhola PHC for treatment and thereafter, shifted to Silchar Medical College and Hospital (SMCH). He was admitted in the said Hospital as an indoor patient w.e.f. 12.03.2008 to 04.04.2008 i.e. for 23 days and during this period, he underwent an operation. In connection with the accident, GD Entry No. 192 dated 13.03.2008 was made by Borkhola Police Station and upon making an inquiry the police found that the accident indeed happened and the appellant sustained injuries. As a result, the appellant filed a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar, Cachar. The claim was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 222/2011. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as claimant witness No. 1 and Doctor Sarfraz Iman, an Orthopaedic Doctor of SMCH as claimant witness No. 2. The respondent no. 2 as well as the owner of the accident vehicle did not examine any witness but they filed their written statement. Consequently, the Tribunal vide the impugned Judgment dated 30.11.2013 disposed of the claim by awarding a sum of Rs. 44,526/- along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing the claim application to the appellant as compensation. 4. Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel by referring to the grounds taken in the memo of appeal submits that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence on record in the proper perspective while deciding the case. 44,526/- along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing the claim application to the appellant as compensation. 4. Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel by referring to the grounds taken in the memo of appeal submits that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence on record in the proper perspective while deciding the case. He submits that the Tribunal committed error in awarding only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering. The appellant was admitted in hospital for 23 days to undergo treatment. He received severe injuries on his right thigh i.e. fracture of right femur and as a result, he had to undergo a major operation. Further, his right eye was damaged and he also received injuries on different parts of his body. The appellant is a driver by profession and due to the accident, he could not continue his work and totally lost his earning capacity. However, the Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of earning for the period of hospitalization only. He also submits that the evidence on record clearly shows that he was adviced to undergo Physiotherapy treatment for one and half year. Against the medical vouchers submitted by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 10,987/-, the Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs. 9,526/-. The appellant was not completely cured and required further treatment but however, the Tribunal did not award any compensation for his future treatment. Under the circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the award of the Tribunal should be enhanced suitably. 5. Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel further submits that in a case of injury, the Tribunal is required to determine compensation broadly under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. He submits that pecuniary damages will include expenses for treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, food and other misc. expenditure. Further, it will also include loss of earning during the period of treatment and also loss of future earnings in case of permanent disability. As for non-pecuniary damages, the same would include damages for pain and suffering, trauma including loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. He submits that the Tribunal therefore ought to have considered awarding compensation to the appellant by considering these factors and the same having not been done, the impugned Judgment should be modified suitably. As for non-pecuniary damages, the same would include damages for pain and suffering, trauma including loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. He submits that the Tribunal therefore ought to have considered awarding compensation to the appellant by considering these factors and the same having not been done, the impugned Judgment should be modified suitably. In support of his submission, he relies upon the case of G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdhary Vs. E. Srinivas and Another, 2013 4 TAC 849(SC). 6. The learned counsel further submits that for invoking the provision of Section 163-A of the MV Act, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- cannot be treated as a cap and therefore, there is no impediment in awarding adequate compensation to the appellant even if his annual income exceed Rs. 40,000/-. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 and United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. B. L. Rochhunga and Another, (2008) 3 GauLT 931 where Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others (Supra) was relied upon. 7. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company (respondent No.2), on the other hand, submits that the appellant filed his claim for compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act and the award made under the said provision is specific and final. By referring to the Second Schedule under Section 163- A of the MV Act, he submits that for non-pecuniary damages under the head pain and suffering , the maximum amount which can be awarded is Rs. 5000/- whereas, the Tribunal award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant under this head. Further, the medical expenses supported by bills/vouchers, which can be paid as a one-time measure is Rs. 15,000/- and considering the bills/vouchers submitted by the appellant, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 9,526/-. Also, as the appellant was hospitalized for 23 days, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- considering his monthly income and also awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- for the expenditure of Medical Attendant. Under the facts and circumstances, the impugned Judgment and Award already being on the higher side, requires no modification. 9,526/-. Also, as the appellant was hospitalized for 23 days, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- considering his monthly income and also awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- for the expenditure of Medical Attendant. Under the facts and circumstances, the impugned Judgment and Award already being on the higher side, requires no modification. The learned counsel in support of his submissions also relies upon the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others (Supra) as well as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansraj Bhai V. Kodala & Others., (2001) 5 SCC 175 . 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 9. From the case projected by the appellant, the sole question which appears to be considered is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant requires to be enhanced. The appellant besides examining himself as claimant witness No. 1 also examined an Orthopaedic Doctor of Silchar Medical College & Hospital as claimant witness No. 2. From the evidence of the two witnesses, the details of the injury sustained by the appellant and the treatment undertaken by him can be seen and the same remains broadly undisputed. The appellant was admitted to the hospital on 12.03.2008 and was thereafter discharged on 04.04.2008. The discharge certificate marked as Exhibit-3 provides that the case of the appellant requires a follow-up and a review in Ophthalmology OPD after two weeks. Exhibit 4, 4 (1) to 4 (9) goes to show that the appellant went for follow up treatment till 12.04.2010. He was also advised to undergo Physiotherapy. However, there are no materials to show that the appellant indeed underwent Physiotherapy treatment. Besides the injury suffered by him on the eye, the main injury suffered by him appears to be the fracture of right femur which required an operation. Although, he was discharged on 04.04.2008, the materials on record shows that he consistently had to go for review medical check-ups. The appellant admittedly being a driver by profession is bound to have suffered loss of income on account of the nature of injury sustained by him. In so far as medical expenses are concerned, although the appellant claims to have spent a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as per his claim application and Rs. The appellant admittedly being a driver by profession is bound to have suffered loss of income on account of the nature of injury sustained by him. In so far as medical expenses are concerned, although the appellant claims to have spent a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as per his claim application and Rs. 10,987/- as mentioned in his appeal, there are no materials on record to justify the same and as such, the amount given by the Tribunal will have to be maintained. However, considering the nature of the injury and the fact that the appellant had to go for frequent medical check-ups even after he was discharged from the hospital, I am of the considered view that loss of income should be computed at least for 1 (one) year at the monthly rate which is found in the evidence of his employer. While taking such a view, it will also be important to note the fact that the claim for compensation has been made under Section 163-A of the MV Act and therefore, compensation is to be computed as per the Second Schedule and in terms of the decisions of the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others (Supra) and Hansraj Bhai (Supra). 10. In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to compensation as follows:- (i) For pain and suffering = Rs. 5000/- (ii) Towards medical expenses = Rs. 9526/- (iii) Towards medical attendant = Rs. 5000/- (iv) Towards loss of earning during hospitalization = Rs. 5000/- (v) Towards loss of earning after discharge for a period of one year i.e., 5500x12 = Rs. 66,000/- Total = Rs. 90,526/-=Rs. 91,000/-(rounded off). 11. The appellant shall thus be entitled a sum of Rs. 91,000/-(Rupees ninety one thousand) only along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application i.e., 07.03.2011. The said amount shall be deposited by the respondent No. 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Liberty is also granted to the respondent No. 2 to deduct any amount which may have already been paid to the appellant along with interest if any in the meantime. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Office to send back the LCR.