JUDGMENT : Sukumar Chakravarty, J.—This is an appeal directed against the award dated 6.7.1978 passed by Mr. R.C. Ghosh, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Calcutta and 24-Parganas in M.A.C. Case No. 199 of 1973 filed at the instance of the insurance company, namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and the owner of the vehicle, namely, Michael Samuel, as Appellants. 2. It was the case of the claimant-Petitioner, Krishna Dutta who was a minor being represented by her natural guardian father Gopal Chandra Dutta, that on 24th February, 1973 at about 16.30 hrs. the taxi No. WBT 7698 was proceeding at a very high speed along the Nimtala Ghat Street from east to west and dashed against her from behind on her right side while she was going through the road. As a result of such accident, the girl sustained serious injury and one of her legs had to be amputated. The girl was thus permanently disabled. The said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi, according to the claimant. The amount of Rs. 55,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. 3. The owner of the vehicle as also the insurer, namely, the aforesaid New India Assurance Company, contested the claim case. The learned Tribunal, however, awarded the total compensation of Rs. 42,600/- making apportionment in the following way: Rs. 2,000/-for pain and sufferings, Rs. 600/- for cost of treatment, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of right lower limb and Rs. 20,000/- for marriage expense of the girl. 4. The owner of the vehicle and the insurer jointly preferred the appeal being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award. 5. Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the Appellants, has not challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi in question and with regard to the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured, i.e., the owner of the vehicle for the compensation as awarded. Mr. Chowdhury has not also disputed the different amount of compensation assessed with regard to the pain and sufferings, cost of treatment and loss of right lower limb. Mr. Chowdhury has, however, submitted that the victim girl cannot be entitled to any compensation for her marriage expense, as such compensation, if awarded, will take the character of dowry. Mr. Mr. Chowdhury has not also disputed the different amount of compensation assessed with regard to the pain and sufferings, cost of treatment and loss of right lower limb. Mr. Chowdhury has, however, submitted that the victim girl cannot be entitled to any compensation for her marriage expense, as such compensation, if awarded, will take the character of dowry. Mr. Chowdhury, however, does not dispute and challenge that the crippled girl should get compensation of Rs. 20,000/- not by way of marriage expenses, but as she would have to incur expenses for leading her life either married or unmarried with the help of a helper and in that case the amount of Rs. 20,000/- which was assessed as compensation for marriage expenses may be awarded as compensation for such expenses, because the unfortunate girl has suffered the permanent disability because of the loss of her right leg. 6. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent, has no objection to accept the submissions of Mr. Chowdhury in this respect. 7. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned advocates, as mentioned above, and on perusal of the impugned order with reference to the materials on the record, we find that the learned Tribunal has rightly held the driver of the taxi liable for rash and negligent driving which caused the accident resulting in the loss of one leg of the victim girl whereby the girl became permanently disabled even in her childhood. The finding of the learned Tribunal making the insurer liable to indemnify the insured with regard to the compensation as awarded has also been found to be justified. 8. We, however, find substance in the submissions of Mr. Chowdhury that no compensation should be awarded for marriage expenses of the victim girl. It appears that the victim girl has got her parents who may or may not incur expenses if the girl is at all given in marriage. Be that as it may, we find justification also in Mr. Chowdhury's submission made in his usual fairness that the crippled girl, who has lost her right leg, would be always dependable throughout her life for her maintenance if she is married or remains unmarried and she will always require a helping hand so long she will remain alive in this world. Such being the position, the awarding of the amount of Rs. Such being the position, the awarding of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on such account appears to be justified. Mr. Das, learned advocate for the Respondent, has also got no objection to the aforesaid submission of Mr. Chowdhury. We, therefore, feel inclined to change the item of marriage expenses into the item of expenses for living with the aid of a helping hand throughout the life of the victim girl. The amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/-remains the same for this changed item also. 9. In view of what has been stated above, we dismiss the appeal with the modification in the body of the award that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation "for marriage expenses" as assessed by the learned Tribunal be treated as the compensation "for living with the aid of a helping hand throughout the life of the victim girl." We make no order as to costs. 10. It has been reported to us by Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for the Appellants, that the insurer has already deposited Rs. 20,000/- with the Tribunal. If it is so, the Appellant insurer may deposit the balance of Rs. 22,600/- with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal within a month from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal. Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J. 11. I agree.