JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard and disposed of finally. 2. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment & award dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur (Raj.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 806/2015, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.27,08,611/- with interest @ 8.50% per annum. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.05.2015, at around 08:30 in the morning, appellant-Raghunandan Sharma while standing in front of his house, was hit by a motor-cycle bearing registration No.RJ27/MS-9606 and due to the accident he suffered injuries. He was taken to the hospital where he undergone treatment for the injuries suffered in this accident. In these circumstances, the claim petition was preferred by the claimant before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.27,08,611/-(Rupees: Twenty Seven Lacs Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eleven Only) to the claimant with an interest @ 8.5% per annum. The amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant. Aggrieved of the same, the Insurance Company as well as claimant have preferred the above appeals before this Court assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 28.02.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal has committed an error while considering the bills produced by the claimant as some of the bills are duplicate and some bills have been issued by forging the same. He emphasized upon the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para numbers 17 to 23 showing that the Tribunal has not closely taken into consideration the bills and awarded the amount against those bills in a very causal manner. The amount awarded against those bills is nothing but the same has been paid twice for one therapy. Thus, the Tribunal has totally misread the evidence placed before it and awarded a huge sum which the claimant is otherwise not entitled. 5. The amount awarded against those bills is nothing but the same has been paid twice for one therapy. Thus, the Tribunal has totally misread the evidence placed before it and awarded a huge sum which the claimant is otherwise not entitled. 5. Secondly, learned counsel submits that the rate of interest awarded vide impugned awarded i.e. 8.5% is quite excessive and the same was not prevailing at the time when the award was passed and thus, on these two grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is required to be suitably modified and reduced. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant has supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal vide its judgment & award dated 28.02.2017 and submitted that in view of the Medical Board's Certificate holding the claimant-respondent as 100% disabled person and based on the age and income documents produced, the Tribunal has rightly computed the amount in this case. He further submits that whatever bills received from the physiotherapist etc. who provided the treatment, the same were placed before the Tribunal without there being any infirmity or forgery. Thus, he submits that the computation done by the Tribunal in the present case does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. However, in the appeal filed by the claimant -Raghunandan Sharma, it is argued that since the appellant injured is a 100% disabled person and bed-ridden, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the expenses incurred towards the future and continuous treatment which is liable to be compensated in this case. He further submits that since claimant- Raghunandan Sharma is 100% bed-ridden, therefore, the services of one person will always be required for helping him to maintain day-to-day affairs. He, thus, prays that a reasonable amount towards the expenses incurred for future treatment and the assistance to be given by somebody may be directed to be awarded in this case. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar, gone through the judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 as well as the record of the case. 9. He, thus, prays that a reasonable amount towards the expenses incurred for future treatment and the assistance to be given by somebody may be directed to be awarded in this case. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar, gone through the judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 as well as the record of the case. 9. So far as the first argument is concerned, a pointed query is raised by this Court to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company for submitting the duplicate bills and thereby causing forgery, if any, done in the present case, the learned counsel very fairly submits that it appears that the number of bills shows that a bill which is issued on one date, no other bill was issued in between and thereafter for the same patient the next number has been issued, reflecting that there is some forgery or some wrong method has been adopted by procuring the bills. 10. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the bills produced before it clearly reflects the entire chronology of the bills and the purpose for which those bills were raised, has also been discussed by the Tribunal. Having perused the bills in question, this Court finds that neither the bills are duplicate nor there is any infirmity in the order of their issuance, therefore, the assumption of the learned counsel for the appellant is misdirected and unfounded. The Tribunal has recorded the categoric finding with respect to the payment done towards the expenses incurred for physiotherapist and other medical treatments extended to the claimant-appellant in this case and the findings recorded do not suffer from any infirmity. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are produced herewith for better appreciation of the facts :- 11. Thus, the finding on the first argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company recorded by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with. 12. As far as, awarding the rate of interest on the compensation amount @ 8.5% is concerned, this Court feels that the same is slightly on the higher side and, therefore, the rate of interest on the amount of compensation should be modified to @ 7.5% instead of 8.5% given by the Tribunal. 13. Thus, the Civil Misc. Appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed. 13. Thus, the Civil Misc. Appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal for the payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.27,08,611/-(Rupees: Twenty Seven Lacs Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eleven Only) is maintained, however, the rate of interest shall be @ 7.5% from the date of application. The entire amount shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today. 14. The amount already deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company in view of the direction issued by this Court, on 25.07.2017 as well as the amount deposited in view of proviso to Sections 173 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act shall also be included. 15. As far as, the appeal filed by the claimant-appellant-Raghunandan Sharma is concerned, it is an admitted position that he is 100% disabled and bed-ridden person in view of the medical documents and no amount has been awarded towards his future upkeep/treatment/day-to-day affairs. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Afnees(Unconscious), represented through mother V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vadakara & Ors. Reported in 2017(2) ACTC (SC) 1233 and Parminder Singh V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2019(2) ACTC (SC) 715. Therefore, this court feels that in the light of the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-should be the 'just compensation' in the present case to be awarded to the claimant for his future treatment and for the assistance to be provided by somebody to him to conduct day-today affairs. 16. Thus, the civil misc. appeal of the applicant- Raghunandan Sharma is allowed with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees: Five Lac Only), in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 28.02.2017 within a period of eight weeks from today.