JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. T. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in MACT Case No.107/2006. 3. The grounds of objection taken in the instant appeal primarily is that the learned Tribunal had made an award in favour of the claimants which is not based upon the evidence. Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in terms with Section 168 of the Act of 1988, what a claimant would be entitled to should be the just and fair compensation but not a compensation which has no reasonable basis. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this is a case where the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount which is whether fair or reasonable for which interference is required. 4. Taking into account the said grounds of objection which pertains to the quantum arrived at by the learned Tribunal, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal. 5. On 24.08.2004 at around 11:30 A.M., the daughter of the claimants namely Smti Sikha Moni Baruah was proceeding in a rickshaw with her friend Smti Banti Suner. Suddenly, one truck bearing Registration No. AS-E-6981 driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the rickshaw on the A.T. Road near Sweet India Hotel which resulted in inflicting severe injuries on the face and other body parts of the daughter of the claimants. Immediately, the daughter of the claimants was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Tinsukia but due to seriousness, she was shifted to Aditya Nursing Home, Dibrugarh. Thereupon, she was referred to Sir Gangaram Hospital, Delhi where she received her treatment. Immediately, after the accident, a case was also registered being Tinsukia P.S. Case No.355/04 under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. It is pertinent herein to mention that at that relevant point of time when the accident happened, the daughter of the claimants was a student pursuing her Bachelor in Arts. Immediately, after the accident, a case was also registered being Tinsukia P.S. Case No.355/04 under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. It is pertinent herein to mention that at that relevant point of time when the accident happened, the daughter of the claimants was a student pursuing her Bachelor in Arts. The claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.19,78,797/-. Pursuant thereto, the appellant herein who was the opposite party No.3 in the claim proceedings filed its written statement wherein general defences were taken. It was also stated that the claim was without any basis and excessive and as such, liable to be dismissed. The owner of the offending truck also filed a written statement wherein he had denied the claims on the ground of being vague, incomplete and did not contain all material particulars. At the time when the accident had taken place, the truck in question was insured with the appellant Insurance Company which was valid from 22.01.2004 to 21.01.2005. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed three issues which are reproduced herein under: “(i) Whether a motor vehicle accident took place on 24.08.04 involving vehicle No.AS-E-6981 (Truck)? (ii) Whether the injured (claimants’ daughter) sustained injuries in the accident? If so, to what extent? (iii) Is the claimant entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?” 8. Pursuant to the issues being framed, evidence was adduced. The learned Tribunal vide a judgment and order dated 17.11.2009 dismissed the said claim petition on the ground that there was certain doubt as to the date of the accident. Being aggrieved, the claimants preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered and numbered as MAC Appeal No.121/2011. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 30.07.2017 after duly taking into account the documentary evidence came to an opinion that the learned Tribunal had erred in law in dismissing the said claim proceedings. Accordingly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 30.05.2017 set aside the judgment and order dated 17.11.2009 and remitted the matter back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision thereby allowing the parties to adduce further evidence for enabling the Tribunal to determine the just and reasonable compensation. 9. Accordingly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 30.05.2017 set aside the judgment and order dated 17.11.2009 and remitted the matter back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision thereby allowing the parties to adduce further evidence for enabling the Tribunal to determine the just and reasonable compensation. 9. The record reveals that pursuant thereto, the claimant No.1 submitted further evidence on 08.09.2017 stating inter alia that the daughter of the claimants continued to suffer on account of the said accident and he has to incur further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the treatment of his daughter. It was also mentioned that there were two major operations to be carried out in the month of October, 2017 at Sir Gangaram Hospital. It was further mentioned that on account of the accident and consequent injuries in the face, head, legs, shoulder and other parts of the body of the daughter of the claimants, she along with the family members were suffering. This Court further takes note of the evidence and more particularly the photographs of the daughter of the claimants prior to the accident and post the accident. 10. The claimant No.1 was cross-examined wherein the claimant No.1 stated that an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- have been reimbursed by the Oil India Limited and apart from that, the claimant No.1 had also incurred a lot of money. He further substantiated with the evidence that the amount of Rs.7,41,271/- was not reimbursed. He further denied that he had quoted an exaggerated amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which would be required for the ongoing treatment. No further evidence was adduced by the appellant company. The learned Tribunal thereupon decided the appeal vide the impugned judgment and award dated 05.01.2018 and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,91,271/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 11. In the backdrop of the above, the point for determination which arises is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the just and fair compensation was Rs.25,91,271/-? 12. This Court has duly taken note of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the claimants. 11. In the backdrop of the above, the point for determination which arises is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the just and fair compensation was Rs.25,91,271/-? 12. This Court has duly taken note of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the claimants. This Court further has taken note of the evidence which have been placed on record including the fact that the daughter of the claimants still continues to suffer as on date on account of the accident which had occurred two decades ago. This Court has duly taken note of the discharge certificates which have been issued by Sir Gangaram Hospital which have been duly exhibited before the learned Tribunal and from the said, it appears that there was continuous reconstruction of the face of the daughter of the claimants and still the daughter of the claimants did not have her face back. It is also seen that on account of the accident, the daughter of the claimants still continues to have 30% Learning Disability and 40% Visual Impairment. 13. This Court is also aware of the fact that the compensation which is to be awarded on account of loss of amenities cannot be with mathematical precision. It has to be on the basis of the sufferings which had caused to the daughter of the claimants. Upon perusal of the materials on record, it is the opinion of this Court that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) which have been awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of the loss of amenities cannot be said to be on higher side. On account of the medical expenses, it is seen that the claimants have duly proved that this amount of Rs.7,41,271/- have not been reimbursed by the Oil India Limited. This Court has also taken note of that on account of the pain and agony, travelling expenses and the cost of the attendants which have been awarded do not seem to be on higher side and the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment and award do not call for interference. This Court further takes note of from the evidence of the claimant witness No.1 that for future treatment, another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was necessary taking into account that two other operations to be done in the month of October, 2017. This Court further takes note of from the evidence of the claimant witness No.1 that for future treatment, another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was necessary taking into account that two other operations to be done in the month of October, 2017. There is no cross-examination in that regard by the respondents. Taking into account the above, this Court do not find any ground for interfering with the compensations so awarded by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.25,91,271/-. 14. Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that taking into account that there has been a delay in the proceedings on account of the fact that on earlier occasion, vide the judgment and order dated 17.11.2009, the claim proceedings was dismissed and thereupon, the said claim proceedings was again restored vide an order dated 30.05.2017, the appellant Insurance Company should not be saddled with the interest for the period from 17.11.2009 to 30.05.2017. 15. This Court has also given anxious consideration to the said submission. The period from 17.11.2009 to 30.05.2017, the appellant was not at fault as the delay during that period was on account of the dismissal of the claim proceedings by the learned Tribunal which was only restored on 30.05.2017. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants would be entitled to the interest on the compensation so awarded w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim proceedings till 17.11.2009. The claimants shall not be entitled to interest from 18.11.2009 to 30.05.2017 however after 30.05.2017 till realization, the claimants would be entitled to interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The amount awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia in MACT Case No.107/2006 to the tune of Rs.25,91,271/- is just and fair compensation and as such the question of interference with the said quantum arrived at by the learned Tribunal does not arise. (ii) The claimants herein would be entitled to interest w.e.f. the date of filing the claim proceedings till 17.11.2009. For the period from 18.11.2009 to 30.05.2017, there shall be no interest. However, w.e.f. 31.05.2017 till the date of actual deposit of the entire amount before the learned Tribunal, the claimants would be entitled to interest. (ii) The claimants herein would be entitled to interest w.e.f. the date of filing the claim proceedings till 17.11.2009. For the period from 18.11.2009 to 30.05.2017, there shall be no interest. However, w.e.f. 31.05.2017 till the date of actual deposit of the entire amount before the learned Tribunal, the claimants would be entitled to interest. The interest so awarded by the learned Tribunal being 6% is also considered to be just and reasonable. (iii) The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount along with the interest as mentioned hereinabove before the learned Tribunal within 6 (six) weeks from today. (iv) The amount which have already been deposited before this Registry shall be duly deducted. (v) The learned Tribunal shall upon deposit of the said amount release an amount of Rs.12,41,271/- by bank transfer in favour of the claimant No.1. The remaining amount be transferred in favour of Smti Sikha Moni Baruah, the daughter of the claimants to her Bank Account. The claimants are directed to furnish the Bank details of the claimant No.1 and his daughter within 6 (six) weeks from the date of the present judgment. 17. The Registry is forthwith directed to return the LCR to the learned Court below.