As a representative of these complexes, we are exhibiting the interaction energy curve of cyclopentane dimer in fig. . We can clearly see that the QDO contribution is very prominent near equilibrium distance. Moreover, our method consistently agree well with benchmark interaction energies at all distance. It is interesting to note that while D2 correction fares well in long-range, near equilibrium our method is far superior than it. In dispersion bound complexes, we obtain both under-and overestimated interaction energies which are plotted in Fig. . In most of the pi-pi stacking complexes interaction energy is over-estimated. Apart from these, uracil-cyclopentane and uracil-pentane also show overestimation of interaction energy to some extent. One of the possible causes may include non-optimal choice for the fragmentation method used in the present work. The results were deviated from benchmark numbers most for Benzene-dimer, Benzene-Pyridine and Pyridine-dimer complexes where the monomers are stacked (or parallel-displaced) over each other. To estimate the error associated with this fragmentation procedure, we have calculated the polarizability tensor of all the fragments and monomers at CCSD/def2-TZVPPD. According to Eq.( ), the Tr (A ) = Tr (A). We have been motivated by this to find out the difference between the sum of diagonal elements of n fragment polarizability tensors (i.e. α µ for µ th fragment) and trace of monomer polarizability tensor (α monomer ) as ∆α = n µ=1 Tr (α µ ) -Tr (α monomer ) (15) and their ratio