1. Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. No one appears for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is the second round of litigation in this Court, in respect of MACT Case No. 24/2015.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the claimant was injured in a bus accident wherein he suffered spinal injuries. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed MACT Case No. 24/2015 before the MACT Aizawl, claiming compensation for the injury suffered by him. The MACT Aizawl disposed of MACT Case No. 24/2015 vide Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, wherein it awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 3,33,486/- to the respondent No. 1, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

4. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded to him on the basis of the Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, passed in MACT Case No. 24/2015, filed MAC Appeal No. 3/2017. The ground of challenge made by the respondent No. 1 to the Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, passed in MACT Case No. 24/2015 was that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the non-pecuniary damages that were to be awarded to the appellant, as the subject matter was related to personal injury. The second ground of challenge taken by the respondent No. 1 was that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the alleged fact that the respondent No. 1 was earning Rs. 1 lakh per annum from his Rice Mill. MAC Appeal No. 3/2017 was disposed of by this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 24.05.2017, by holding that there was no infirmity with the decision of the learned Tribunal in taking the income of the respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month (Notional income) . With respect to the other ground of challenge taken by the respondent No. 1 to the Judgment & Award dated 24.02.2017, this Court directed the MACT to take further evidence and if it was found that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to payment of non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal was to take a decision for payment of compensation on the same. In compliance with the Judgment & Order 24.05.2017, passed in MAC Appeal No. 3/2017, the learned Tribunal took further evidence and thereafter passed the Judgment & Award dated 20.09.2017 in MACT Case No. 24/2015 wherein it held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damages, awarded Rs. 5,50,000/- under the head, non-pecuniary damages.

5. The amount of compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary Head by the learned Tribunal is as follows:-

(1) Future Medical Expenses = Rs. 2,00,000/-

(2) Physical Pain and Suffering = Rs. 2,00,000/-

(3) Loss of Amenities = Rs. 1,50,000/-

Total = Rs. 5,50,000/-.

6. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 26.03.2015 till final payment of the amount.

7. The Insurance Company has challenged the second Judgment & Award dated 20.09.2017, passed in MACT Case No. 24/2015 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to payment of compensation with regard to future medical expenses, as the evidence of the Doctor, who had examined the respondent No. 1, is to the effect that there would be no further treatment required on the legs of the respondent No. 1.

8. The counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of the Doctor having clearly stated that the respondent No. 1 would not require any further treatment on his legs, the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 2 lakhs for future medical expenses.

9. In support of his submission, The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr, reported in 2014 5 SCC 330. The appellants counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal erred in granting 9% interest on the awarded amount of compensation as the interest rates given by Banks on fixed d