JUDGMENT : This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the insurance company against the award dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura in TS(MAC) 12 of 2014 awarding compensation of a sum of Rs.6,82,422/- along with 6% annual interest thereon to the claimant who developed 40% physical disability as a result of the road traffic accident on 10.05.2013 while he was travelling in the offending vehicle from Sonamura to Aralia Daodharani. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under : Claimant respondent Abul Kashem boarded the offending vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-D-0582 at Tamsabari Chowmuhani, Sonamura for going to Aralia Daodharani on 10.5.2013. As a result of reckless driving of the vehicle at a very high speed, the vehicle capsized on the road. As a result, the claimant received multiple fracture injuries in his left hand and he was admitted in Sonamura Sub-Divisional Hospital from where he was first referred to Melaghar Hospital and from there to Tripura Medical College & Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital at Hapania. Stating these facts, his father Manjir Ali lodged a written FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Sonamura Police Station based on which Sonamura P.S. Case No.57 of 2013 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was taken up by police. 3. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet No.74 of 2013 dated 29.07.2013 against accused driver Suleman Miah for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. 4. Claimant submitted a claim petition in the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads with annual interest at the rate of 12%. The insurance company as well as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were impleaded as respondents in the said claim petition who filed separate written objections. The owner denied his liability with regard to compensation since his vehicle was duly insured covering third party risk and the said policy was current on the date of occurrence. The insurance company on the other hand pleaded that payment of compensation would be subject to production of the original insurance policy certificate and relevant documents of the offending vehicle including a valid driving license of the driver who drove the said vehicle at the time of accident. The insurance company on the other hand pleaded that payment of compensation would be subject to production of the original insurance policy certificate and relevant documents of the offending vehicle including a valid driving license of the driver who drove the said vehicle at the time of accident. 5. During trial, claimant adduced the evidence of himself and introduced as many as seven documents (Exbts.1 to 7) in support of his claim. Claimant also examined Dr. Dipti Bikash Roy who examined the claimant at the District Disability Medical Board as a locomotor specialist and issued his disability certificate (Exbt.-8). On the side of the respondent, owner of the offending vehicle was examined as OPW-1. During trial the Tribunal framed several issues and after evaluating evidence and hearing the counsel of the parties awarded a sum of Rs.6,82,422/- to the claimant along with 6% annual interest thereon observing as under: “14. In the result, the claim petition filed by the claimant petitioner is hereby allowed. The claimant-petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.6,82,422/- (Rupees six lacs eighty two thousand four hundred twenty two) only from the OP No.3. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this claim application i.e. w.e.f. 17.04.2014. 15. The Insurance Company is to make the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimant-petitioner within a period of 6(six) weeks from today. If the amount is not paid within the statutory period in that case the Insurance Company shall have to pay additional interest @ 9% per annum till realization of the amount. 70% of the amount of compensation with interest be deposited in a long term fixed deposit in the Nationalized Bank in the name of the claimant petitioner and the rest amount shall be released to the claimant-petitioner to his individual bank account by the Nazir of this establishment. No loan or withdrawal shall be permitted from the fixed deposit certificate without prior permission from the Tribunal.” 6. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award of the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal mainly on the following grounds: (i) The Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the claimant against the settled principles of law. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award of the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal mainly on the following grounds: (i) The Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the claimant against the settled principles of law. (ii) The Tribunal failed to appreciate that claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle and, as such, he was not entitled to any compensation. (iii) Tribunal should not have applied the multiplier for assessment of the loss of income of the claimant because the disability certificate was valid only for a period of 5(five) years. 7. Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company as well as Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondents. 8. In the course of his arguments Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the assessment of compensation is wholly erroneous because the assessment of income of the claimant is entirely based on guess work. Counsel further argued that the claimant was not at all entitled to any compensation arising out of his use of the offending vehicle since he was a gratuitous passenger in the said vehicle. Learned counsel therefore, urges for setting aside the impugned award of the Tribunal. 9. Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the claimant on the other hand has contended that Tribunal’s award is based on evidence and a fair assessment of compensation has been made by the Tribunal which does not call for any interference in appeal. Counsel therefore, urges for dismissal of the appeal. 10. With regard to the plea of the insurance company that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the said vehicle, Mr. Saha, learned counsel of the claimant has referred to the insurance policy (Exbt.-b) of the vehicle which goes to show that sitting capacity of the offending vehicle was 8(eight) and therefore, the vehicle was permitted to carry 8(eight) persons. Counsel has also referred to the evidence of PW-1 who has categorically stated that driver of the offending vehicle was a friend of him who voluntarily offered a lift to the claimant in his vehicle. Said evidence of PW-1 was not denied during his cross examination by the insurance company. Therefore, the plea of the insurance company that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle does not survive in legal scrutiny. Said evidence of PW-1 was not denied during his cross examination by the insurance company. Therefore, the plea of the insurance company that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle does not survive in legal scrutiny. 11. With regard to the assessment of compensation for loss of income, tribunal assessed claimant’s daily income at Rs.250/- since he was a day labourer. Assuming that he would be able to work at least for 25 days in a month, his monthly income was worked out to be Rs.250 x 25 = 6,250/- and likewise his annual income was worked out to be Rs.6250 x 12 = 75,000/-. Relying on the oral evidence of Dr. Dipti Bikash Roy, PW-2 and the disability certificate issued from the District Disability Medical Board, the Tribunal held that the claimant suffered from 40% functional disability. Since the claimant was proved to be 24 years of age, multiplier of 18 was applied in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the loss of income of the claimant was thus worked out to be Rs.75,000 x 18 = 13,50,000/-. 40% of the said amount was given to the claimant since he suffered from 40% disability. As such, 40% of Rs.13,50,000/- i.e. Rs.5,40,000/- was awarded to the claimant as loss of income. Since the claimant was confined to bed and unable to pursue his work for about 06(six) months after the said accident, his actual loss of income was worked out to be Rs.6250 x 6 = 37,500/-. Tribunal also awarded Rs.26,422 as actual medical expenses for medicines and hospital charges including consultation fees of doctors and a sum of Rs.59,000/- was awarded as attendant charges because it was not possible for the claimant to move alone to different hospital outside the State without the help of attendants. This apart, tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- to the claimant for his pain and suffering resulting from the said accident. 12. In view of the above, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads : Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. For loss of future income Rs.5,40,000/- 2. For loss of actual income Rs.37,500/- 3. For medical expenses Rs.26,422/- 4. For attendant charges Rs.59,000/- 5. For pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.6,82,922/- 13. 12. In view of the above, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads : Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. For loss of future income Rs.5,40,000/- 2. For loss of actual income Rs.37,500/- 3. For medical expenses Rs.26,422/- 4. For attendant charges Rs.59,000/- 5. For pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.6,82,922/- 13. The Apex Court in the case of Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 341 held that the tribunal should adopt equitable principles and reasonable approach for determination of just compensation. In the said judgment the Apex Court has held as under: “15. It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of “just compensation” obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and the court must be on a large peripheral field. Both the courts and the tribunals in the matter of this exercise should be guided by principles of good conscience so that the ultimate result becomes just and equitable (see Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharastra SRTC, AIR 1998 SC 3191 )” 14. With regard to determination of functional disability, this High Court in case of Samir Ch. Das Vs. Md. Jamal Hossain & Anr. in MAC App. No. 3 of 2019 has succinctly held that conversion of physical disability into functional disability is not a task of medical board. Such assessment should be made by the concerned Claims Tribunal. Observation of this Court in this regard is as under : “11. However, any such assessment of conversion of physical disability into functional disability is the task to be performed by the Claims Tribunal and not the medical expert. The deposition of the doctor before the Tribunal had to be confined to his assessment of the locomotive disability sustained by the claimant on account of the injury. He ought not to have been asked to assess the level of functional disability. ………………………………………….” 15. In the given case, it is not denied that claimant is a day labourer by occupation. The deposition of the doctor before the Tribunal had to be confined to his assessment of the locomotive disability sustained by the claimant on account of the injury. He ought not to have been asked to assess the level of functional disability. ………………………………………….” 15. In the given case, it is not denied that claimant is a day labourer by occupation. Almost a year after the accident he appeared before the District Disability Medical Board. Dr. Dipti Bikash Roy, PW-2 after his examination opined that he was having 40% locomotor disability. His statement that functional disability of the claimant extended to 30% is not acceptable in view of the decision of this Court in Samir Ch. Das(supra). Locomotor disability of a day labourer is likely to have a serious affect on his occupation. In all likelihood such disability would reduce his capacity to work as a day labourer. Therefore, under no circumstances his functional disability can be reduced to 30% in such case. 16. The Tribunal seems to have given no compensation to the claimant towards future prospect. Claimant is admittedly 24 years old. The disability suffered by him from the said accident will no doubt deprive him of future prospect. Considering his age, occupation and potentials and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others; reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 Tribunal should have made an addition of 40% of his income for loss of future prospect. With such addition of 40% of the income the claimant would be entitled to Rs.75,000 + 30,000 (40% of Rs.75,000) x 18 = Rs.18,90,000/-. Since the claimant has suffered from 40% functional disability he will be entitled to 40% of the said amount of Rs.18,90,000/- which comes to Rs.7,56,000/-. 17. This apart, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that the claimant who suffered from 40% disability in a fatal accident would need periodical medical check-up and treatment. Therefore, Tribunal should have awarded reasonable compensation to the claimant for future treatment. In the considered view of this Court, an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be an appropriate amount in this case for future treatment of the claimant. 18. Tribunal seems to have awarded compensation of sum of Rs.20,000/- only to the claimant for his pain and suffering resulting from the accident. In the considered view of this Court, an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be an appropriate amount in this case for future treatment of the claimant. 18. Tribunal seems to have awarded compensation of sum of Rs.20,000/- only to the claimant for his pain and suffering resulting from the accident. Admittedly, claimant suffered from multiple fracture injuries in the vital parts of his body for which he was subjected to enormous pain and suffering. Amount of compensation for pain and suffering should therefore, be raised to Rs.60,000/-. 19. Court is not powerless to grant compensation to the claimant more than the amount claimed by him after taking into consideration the loss actually suffered by him from the accident. In this regard, the Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 has held as under : “33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.” 20. In view of what has been discussed above, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by this Court as follows : Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. For loss of income including loss of future prospect Rs.7,56,000/- 2. Actual loss of income due to confinement in hospital and home Rs.37,500/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.26,422/- 4. Attendant charges Rs.59,000/- 5. For future treatment Rs.50,000/- 6. For pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- Total Rs.9,88,922/- Say Rs.9,90,000/- 21. The said amount i.e. Rs.9,90,000/-(rupees nine lakhs ninety thousand) will carry annual interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition at the Tribunal till disbursement to the claimant. The mode of disbursement formulated by the Tribunal also needs interference. Claimant is a young man who may need cash money for treatment and business purpose. Therefore, direction of the Tribunal to invest 70% of the award in a fixed deposit is not appropriate. It is therefore, directed that 50% of the award shall be deposited in a term deposit in the name of the claimant for a period of five years in any nationalised bank with facility of monthly income. Therefore, direction of the Tribunal to invest 70% of the award in a fixed deposit is not appropriate. It is therefore, directed that 50% of the award shall be deposited in a term deposit in the name of the claimant for a period of five years in any nationalised bank with facility of monthly income. The monthly income generated from such deposit may be spent by the claimant for his day to day expenses. Rest 50% of the award shall be released in his favour. Appellant insurance company will deposit the entire amount of compensation with interest within 08(eight) weeks from today deducting thereform the amount already paid, if any. 22. In terms of the above, the appeal stands dismissed and the case is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Send down the L.C. record.