Judgment : G. Satapathy, J. 1. These two appeals U/S. 173(1) of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 ( in short, the “Act”); one by the insurance company in MACA No. 543 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “insurer”) and the other by the injured-claimant in MACA No. 238 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “claimant”), are directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned 3 rd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (in short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.91 of 2017. The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment has directed the insurer to pay the compensation amount of Rs.41, 27,376/- to the claimant together with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 19.06.2017 till actual realization. 2. The short facts as found from the record are that on 30.12.2016 at about 12 Noon, when the claimant was going on his scooty from Baramunda side towards Khandagiri, on the left side of the road, at that time, suddenly one Truck bearing Regd. No.OD- 02-W-4179 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) came in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooty of the claimant causing serious injury to him and he was, accordingly, shifted to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, but subsequently, to Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar, however, according to the claimant, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and he became 100% disabled and he was an employee of M/s. Sagar Metal Forming, Sati Jjayamati Road, Athgaon, Guwahati, Assam with salary @ Rs.17,500/- per month, but due to accident, he is unable to perform his normal duty and lost his avocation. Accordingly, the claimant approached the learned Tribunal in an application U/S.166 of the Act for grant of compensation of Rs.76,00,000/- by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 2.1. In response to the notice of claim, the owner of offending vehicle did not appear and was set ex parte, but the insurer appeared and filed its written statement denying its liability by pleading inter-alia that the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent, but the accident occurred due to fault of the claimant, who by riding his Activa scooty in a wrong direction dashed against the offending vehicle and sustained injuries. Accordingly, the insurer with aforesaid pleadings prayed to dismiss the claim of the claimant. 3. Accordingly, the insurer with aforesaid pleadings prayed to dismiss the claim of the claimant. 3. On the rival pleadings of the claimant and insurer, the learned Tribunal framed two issues with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Accordingly, the claimant examined two witnesses vide PWs.1 and 2 and proved 15 documents under Ext.1 to 15 as against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer. 4. After hearing the parties upon analysis of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay the compensation as indicated above to the claimant. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, both the parties i.e. the claimant and the insurer have filed separate appeals, but basically the quantum of compensation is under challenge in both the appeals, no matter the insurer additionally challenges the legality of the impugned judgment in its appeal. 5. Heard, Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel for the insurer and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant and perused the record. 6. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record together with the short written notes of argument as produced by the parties, it albeit primarily appears the dispute/ challenge is to the quantum of compensation, but the insurer additionally challenges its liability from paying the compensation to the claimant on the ground of the claimant being negligent in riding the Scooty and the penal interest awarded against the company, however, the claimant challenges the quantum of compensation on three counts; firstly, for assessing the loss of future earning with disability @ 50% instead of 100%, which the learned Tribunal has arrived at; secondly, for calculating the medical expenditure at Rs.13,03,793/- instead of Rs.16,82,875/- ;and lastly, for not granting any amount towards attendant charges to the 100% disabled claimant for his entire life; whereas the insurance company challenges the quantum of compensation for assessing it on the basis of unproven documents of disability, income and medical expenditure of the claimant. In the circumstances, coming to the challenge of the insurer for avoiding its liability from paying compensation to the claimant on the ground of claimant being negligent in riding and penal interest, it no doubt appears that the learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record answered issue no.1 in favour of the claimant by holding the accident to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, but although it was disputed, however, the evidence on record clearly justify that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was testified by PW1 and it has been suggested to the PW1 that the accident in question was an head on collision, which was denied by PW1 and similarly, save & except unsuccessfully suggesting to PW1 that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant, nothing substantial was brought in evidence to establish that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the claimant, however, the document proved under Ext.2 confirms that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and, therefore, nothing remains to hold that the accident was due to negligence of the claimant. Further, no independent evidence was led by the insurance company to dispute that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. 7. Besides, the insurance company in fact disowns its liability challenging only the negligence of the claimant, but it was not an acceptable plea and, therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. With regard to penal interest, this Court has no hesitation to emphasize that Section 171 of the Act provides for interest, where claim is allowed, but penal interest is not conceived in the Act. Further, since interest is awardable on the compensation, there is no need to award any penal interest, if the award is not satisfied by the insurer within a particular/stipulated time. 8. Further, since interest is awardable on the compensation, there is no need to award any penal interest, if the award is not satisfied by the insurer within a particular/stipulated time. 8. In addressing the issue of disability of the claimant, the insurer claims that the documents has not been proved in accordance with law, but PW1 has proved the disability certificate under Ext.7 with objection, however, the insurer in the cross- examination of PW1 has elicited that the claimant had been to CDMO, Sundargarh and the medical board comprises of three doctors and except this, nothing was brought on record, rather it was unsuccessfully suggested to PW1 that he has manufactured the disability certificate for the purpose of the case. It is no more res integra that the disability certificate issued by the medical board can be taken into consideration, which is evident from the law laid down in Paragraph-18 of the decision in Raj Kumar Vrs. Ajay Kumar and another ; (2011) 1 SCC 343 wherein the Apex Court has held that where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates, but it is crystal clear in this case that the evidence adduced by the claimant in regard to Ext.7 (Disability Certificate) could not be validly disputed by the insurer to doubt its genuineness. Hence, Ext.7, the Disability Certificate of the claimant appears to be a genuine document to accept the extent of disability of the claimant described in it. 9. Indisputably, the learned tribunal has assessed the disability of the claimant under Ext.7 at 100% in paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment by observing inter-alia that the claimant’s case is of mental illness due to head injury with traumatic quadriparesis. It is, therefore, clear that the challenge of the insurer to the disability merits no consideration. Now coming to the other aspect of income of the claimant, it is claimed by the claimant that he was gainfully employed in M/s. Sagar Metal Forming, Sati, Jjayamati Road, Athgaon, Guwahati, Assam as an area sales officer and was drawing a salary of Rs.17,500/- per month, which was only confirmed in the cross- examination of PW1 in paragraph-8 that for the month of November, 2016 his son (claimant) received a sum of Rs.17,200/- as a salary, which has been distinctly marked in passbook entry. It is, thus, clear that the challenge of the insurance company to the income of the claimant is only an imagination. 10. Now coming to the 3 rd issue/challenge for taking into consideration the unproven documents to consider the medical expenditure of the claimant, it is not disputed that PW1 has testified to have filed medical documents and bills amounting to Rs.16, 82,875/-, but PW1 in his examination-in-chief (affidavit) has stated that he has spent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards the treatment of the claimant. Moreover, the learned Tribunal in paragraph-10 has stated that the claimant has filed documents relating to expenditure towards treatment which amounts to Rs.13,03,793/-, but no document has been produced in this Court to counter such observation, except the examination-in-chief of PW1 in which it is stated that he has filed medical documents and bill amounting to Rs.16,82,875/-. This Court, therefore, does not consider it proper to take the medical expenditure of the claimant more than what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 11. On considering the disability of the claimant, more particularly when the Tribunal has assessed the disability of the claimant at 100% in paragraph-13, it should have calculated the loss of future earning by taking into account the disability so assessed, but the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in computing the compensation to the claimant by taking his disability at 50% which is without any reason and, therefore, the quantum as determined under the heading of loss of future earning to the claimant is required to be modified and re-computed @ 100% disability at Rs.33,60,000/- (Rs.17,500/- X12X16) and adding 40% to it towards future prospect, the loss of future earning of the claimant would come around Rs.33,60,000/- + Rs.13,44,000/- (40% of Rs.33,60,000/-) = Rs.47,04,000/-. Once the loss of future earning is calculated at 100%, there would not be any loss of earning during the period of treatment, but the learned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.21,583/- for loss of earning during the period of treatment, which is not required in this case. The claimant has also not challenged the award made under the head of pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life, which are really required to be added only as a token or nominal amount in view of the principle laid down in Paragraph-15 by Apex Court in Ajay Kumar(supra) . The claimant has also not challenged the award made under the head of pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life, which are really required to be added only as a token or nominal amount in view of the principle laid down in Paragraph-15 by Apex Court in Ajay Kumar(supra) . Further, some amount may be awarded to the claimant for future medical expenses. Moving to the next issue of giving attendant charges for the entire life of the claimant, it is found just and proper to emphasize that the claimant is 100% disabled and, thereby, he definitely requires an attendant for his entire life and, therefore, some amount must be given under this head, but no precise mathematical calculation can be done to award any amount under this head, rather some hypothetical consideration is required in this regard and, accordingly, this Court considers that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- would be just and proper for the attendant charges of the claimant for his entire life. This Court considers it appropriate to award a Lumpsum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimant towards his attendant charges for the entire life. Thus, the modified compensation amount to which the claimant is entitled to as under:- 12. In the result, the appeal by the claimant is allowed, but the appeal by the insurance company is dismissed on contest. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified and the compensation to the claimant is re-determined with direction to the insurance company to pay the modified compensation amount of Rs.68,57,793/- together with simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 19.06.2017 till actual realization. Accordingly, the insurance company is, hereby, directed to deposit the modified compensation amount before the learned Tribunal within eight weeks hence and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The statutory amount together with accrued interest thereon be refunded back to the insurance company on proof of production of deposit of modified compensation amount before the learned Tribunal.