JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court No.1) Gomati Judicial District, Uadipur by award dated 20.06.2016 in T.S. (MAC) 04 of 2016, claimant Subrata Sarkar has filed the present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(MV Act, for short) seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the said Tribunal. [2] Essential facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: On 26.10.2014, claimant was going to Rajarbag from Matabari area of Udaipur on his motor bike bearing registration No.TR-03-D-6030. On the way at Canal Chowmuhani the offending vehicle (mini bus) bearing registration No.TR-03-1348 on its way from Agartala to Udaipur dashed against the motor bike of the claimant. As a result, claimant slipped from his bike and received multiple fracture and abrasion all over his body. He was immediately taken to the nearby hospital from where he was referred to AGMC & GBP hospital at Agartala for better treatment. He was treated as an indoor patient in AGMC & GBP hospital from 26.10.2014 to 28.10.2014. After release from AGMC & GBP hospital claimant visited several hospitals including Yashoda Hospital at Sekendrabad, Rabindranath Tagore hospital in Kolkata and lastly he received treatment at the ILS Hospitals at Agartala. [3] Immediately, after the accident, his cousin brother Sudip Mitra lodged a written FIR with the Officer in charge of the R.K.Pur Police station alleging that the accident occurred due to reckless driving of the offending vehicle. FIR of said Sudip Mitra was registered as R.K.Pur P.S. Case No.247 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 338, IPC and after investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet No.224 of 2014 dated 31.12.2014 against accused driver Naresh Das for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 427 IPC read with Section 144 of the MV Act. [4] Claimant filed petition under Section 166, MV Act at the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Owner of the offending vehicle, its driver and the insurer were impleaded as respondents in the said petition. The respondents appeared in the Tribunal and filed separate written objections against the claim of the petitioner. [4] Claimant filed petition under Section 166, MV Act at the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Owner of the offending vehicle, its driver and the insurer were impleaded as respondents in the said petition. The respondents appeared in the Tribunal and filed separate written objections against the claim of the petitioner. In their joint written statement filed by the driver and owner, driver denied the charge of rash and negligent driving and pleaded that accident occurred due to carelessness of the claimant who was on his motor bike. Owner denied his responsibility with regard to payment of compensation and pleaded that his vehicle was duly insured and therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. The owner further pleaded that driver had a valid driving license and all documents of the vehicle including its registration, tax clearance certificate, pollution certificate, permit etc. were in order and the insurance policy was also current on the date of the occurrence. The insurance company pleaded that the liability of paying compensation would arise only when it was proved that there was a valid insurance policy on the date of occurrence. [5] During trial, the Tribunal framed 3 issues. The first issue was whether the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving. The next issue was whether the claimant was entitled to any compensation and in case he was found entitled to compensation, who would pay such compensation. The 3rd issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to any other relief. Parties were asked to lead evidence. The claimant adduced his oral evidence and 15 documents [Exbt.1 to Exbt.15] in support of his claim. Claimant was cross examined on behalf of the respondents. But no separate evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The 3rd issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to any other relief. Parties were asked to lead evidence. The claimant adduced his oral evidence and 15 documents [Exbt.1 to Exbt.15] in support of his claim. Claimant was cross examined on behalf of the respondents. But no separate evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. [6] The Tribunal examined the evidence of the claimant and after considering the submissions of the counsel of the parties awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,00/- to the claimant under the following heads along with 6% annual interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim till disbursement: Sl.No. Head Amount 01 Medical including hospital charges Rs.1,89,964/- 02 Transportation charges including air fare Rs.53,949/- 03 Miscellaneous expenses Rs.26,000/- 04 Loss of income Rs.20,000/- 05 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.3,39,913/- Say Rs.3,40,000/- [7] Aggrieved claimant has filed this appeal challenging the said award mainly on the following grounds: (i) Tribunal did not consider the extent of injuries and consequential loss of income of the claimant. (ii) Tribunal did not grant any compensation for loss of future treatment of the claimant. (iii) Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.6000/- whereas he actually used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month as a businessman. Medical expenses which was awarded by the Tribunal was lesser than the expenses actually incurred by the claimant. [8] In the course of his argument Mr.A.Acharjee, counsel of the applicant has contended that the Tribunal should have considered the fact that the claimant suffered serious injuries which had serious consequence on his life and occupation. Claimant had to spend more amount of money than what has been granted by the Tribunal for his treatment. Moreover, he will have to incur recurring expenses for his future treatment. This apart, the hospital bills produced by him also involve huge amount which has not been fully reimbursed by the Tribunal. It is further contended by Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel that the Tribunal did not also consider the fact that claimant was an established businessman whose monthly income was not less than Rs.20,000/- . Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs.6000/- only which is less than the income of a day labourer. It is further contended by Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel that the Tribunal did not also consider the fact that claimant was an established businessman whose monthly income was not less than Rs.20,000/- . Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs.6000/- only which is less than the income of a day labourer. It is contended by Mr.Acharjee, learned counsel that the MV Act casts a duty on the Tribunal to arrive at a just and fair compensation in motor accident claim cases so as to ensure that the victim of road traffic accidents are appropriately compensated. In support of his contention Mr.Acharjee, learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Ors. reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 . Learned counsel therefore, urges the court to enhance the compensation payable to the claimant by allowing this appeal. [9] Mr. A.K.Pal, advocate appearing for the insurance company on the other hand submits that the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable, just and fair compensation to the claimant which does not call for any interference in appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court for dismissal of the appeal. [10] The question which arises for consideration before this court is whether the given circumstances require enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. [11] Admittedly, immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to hospital and he was treated as an indoor patient in AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala where he was admitted as an indoor patient on 26.10.2014 as per the discharge summary certificate [Exbt.5]. Admittedly, claimant suffered no kind of disability from the said accident. The Tribunal considered that the claimant received treatment in various hospitals outside the state and on the basis of the bills actually produced by the claimant, tribunal granted compensation under the head of hospital charges and medical expenses. Separate compensation for air journey has also been granted by the Tribunal. I find no fault with the assessment of the Tribunal with regard to the hospital charges, medical expenses and transportation charges which have been granted on the basis of documents actually submitted by the claimant. [12] With regard to the income of the claimant, Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- whereas the claimant pleaded that he used to earn Rs.20,000/- as a businessman. [12] With regard to the income of the claimant, Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- whereas the claimant pleaded that he used to earn Rs.20,000/- as a businessman. The Tribunal held that the claimant neither disclosed the nature of his business nor he produced any documentary proof in support of his claim that he was a businessman. Therefore, the Tribunal guessed that as a day labourer, he would have earned Rs.200/- per day making a monthly income of Rs.6000/-. Tribunal held that he lost such income for about 3 months during his confinement at home and for travelling to various hospitals outside the state. On the basis of such assumption, Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- for 3 months which was rounded off to 20,000/- for loss of actual income. In my considered view, compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of income should be slightly raised. Admittedly claimant was 34 years old at the time of the accident. At this age even as a day labourer he would have earned more. It would be hardly possible to find out a day labourer at the daily wages of Rs.200/-. Minimum wages would be Rs.300/-. Presuming that he would get work for 25 days in a month, his monthly income would be (Rs.300 x 25)=Rs.7500/-. Therefore, for 3 months, his loss of income would be (Rs.7500/- x 3)=Rs.22,500/-. [13] With regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, Tribunal recorded that in Yashoda hospital, Sekendrabad following injuries were reported in the MRI report of the claimant: “i) Posterior cruciate ligament: Reveals mid segment and the tibial attachment complete tear with rectracted torn fibres. Posterior aspect of the joint shows fraying of the transver fibres associated with minimal joint effusion. ii) Anterior cruciate ligament shows partial dysruption of fibres at the femoral attachment-suggestive of intra substance tear. iii) Fluid noted along with poplitus tendon. iv) Posterior horn of the medial meniscus show evidence of partial tear. v) Posterolateral corner ligament show mild laxity due to sprain.” [14] In view of the said injuries suffered by the claimant, there is merit in the contention of the counsel of the appellant that claimant would need further treatment and the Tribunal should have awarded compensation for his future treatment. In the case of Kajal Vs. v) Posterolateral corner ligament show mild laxity due to sprain.” [14] In view of the said injuries suffered by the claimant, there is merit in the contention of the counsel of the appellant that claimant would need further treatment and the Tribunal should have awarded compensation for his future treatment. In the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Ors(supra), the Apex Court has held that while awarding compensation in motor accident claim cases one factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent (italics supplied). In view of the injuries suffered by the claimant and the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, it would be appropriate to award at least Rs.80,000/- to the claimant for future medical treatment. [15] It also appears that Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering of the claimant which should also be raised. With a view to the injuries suffered by the claimant, compensation for pain and suffering may be enhanced by at least Rs.12,000/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.62,000/- shall be an appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal for miscellaneous expenses cannot be accepted. There cannot be any compensation under such head. Rather, in view of the injuries suffered by the claimant, he should have been awarded more compensation for loss of future income particularly because the claimant who was in confinement at hospitals and home for 03 months during the treatment without any income required more time to regain full capacity of earning. The extent of injuries suffered by him suggests that he would need at least a year to regain full capacity of earning. Presuming that after 3 months of his confinement during treatment, he would be able to work for 10 days in a month for at least next 9 months, he should have been compensated for further loss of income for 15 days in a month for next 9 months which comes to (Rs.4500/- x 9)=Rs.40,500/-. Therefore, claimant is awarded Rs.40,500/- for loss of future income. Therefore, claimant is awarded Rs.40,500/- for loss of future income. [16] In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced and recomputed as under: Sl.No. Head Amount 01 Medical including hospital charges Rs.1,89,964/- 02 Transportation charges including air fare Rs.53,949/- 03 Future medical treatment Rs.80,000/- 04 Loss of future income Rs.40,500/- 05 Loss of actual income Rs.22,500/- 06 Pain and suffering Rs.62,000/- Total Rs.4,48,913/- Say Rs.4,50,000/- [17] The appeal is thus partly allowed. Tribunal is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation awarded by this court along with 6% annual interest from the date of filing till disbursement to the claimant after making adjustments with the amount already paid, if any, and the said amount after adjustment shall be deposited with the Tribunal (MACT, Court No.1) at Udaipur within a period of 8 weeks from today for disbursement to the claimant appellant. [18] In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of. Interim application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.