JUDGMENT M. Rama Jois, J.—This appeal is by the claimant aggrieved by the quantum .of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore city in a claim petition presented by her under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The petitioner who was aged 12 years filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her in an accident involving scooter bearing No. C AE152, on 26.6.1982 at about 9.30 a.m. while she was crossing the 5th Main Road, Sriramapuram, Bangalore. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/-. The learned Judge awarded a compensation of Rs. 23. 000/- as general damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards medical expenses. 3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the appellant has presented this appeal. It is in evidence given by the appellant that after the accident, she was taken to K.C. General Hospital, Malleshwaram and on X-ray being taken, the doctor told her that she had suffered a fracture on left leg. In Bowring Hospital she was put on plaster, and she went back to her home and was taking treatment as an out-patient. As she developed severe pain, subsequently she was admitted to Maiya Nursing Home. In the nursing home an operation was conducted to set right the bone. But subsequently, on 17.7.1982, her left leg above the knee was amputated. She has stated that after the accident she had to use an artificial leg and she could not climb stairs, she could not play games and she could not go out walking alone and she could not squat. The Tribunal has also noticed that the appellant showed her left leg which was 3/4th amputated above the knee and after noticing the above disability, the learned Judge referred to the judgment of this Court in Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. v Samuel Ebenezer Abnes, 1983 ACJ 547 wherein this Court had awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the claimant therein whose leg had been amputated. Corpn. v Samuel Ebenezer Abnes, 1983 ACJ 547 wherein this Court had awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the claimant therein whose leg had been amputated. The claimant in that case was aged 17 years studying in the 1st year P.U.C. But the learned Judge distinguished the said case on the ground of difference between the social status of the claimant in the said case and in this case and held that awarding a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as general damages would meet the ends of justice. 4. Mr. K.T. Gurudev Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was too meagre. He submitted even applying the decision of this Court in Samuel's* Case, 1983 ACJ 547 in which Rs. 40.000/- was awarded for the claimant whose leg had been amputated, in an accident which had taken place several years earlier to 1983, the learned Judge should have awarded the companion as prayed for by the appellant, as the appellant herself had claimed only a just compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/. "In support of the contention that atleast a sum of Rs. l ,00,000/- was the appropriate compensation to be awarded in this case, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court In Pushpa Thakur v. Union of India, 1984 ACJ 559 That was also a case in which there had been an amputation of the right leg of the claimant therein. The Supreme Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/-, the learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.No.2438 of 1983;decidedon 12.12.1985 in which a compensation of Rs. l ,00,000/- was awarded to the claimant therein which was also a case of amputation of right leg. In our opinion, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is sound for the entire prospects and career in life of the appellant have stood frustrated by the amputation of leg which was a result of the accident. 5. We, however, consider in order to safeguard the interest of the appellant, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- out of the amount awarded should be invested in the Unit Trust of India for a period of five years. 6. In the result, we make the following order: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The compensation awarded at Rs. 24,000/- by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 60,000/- out of the amount awarded should be invested in the Unit Trust of India for a period of five years. 6. In the result, we make the following order: (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The compensation awarded at Rs. 24,000/- by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment or deposit. (iii) Respondents are entitled to deduct the amount already paid out of the compensation awarded in this order. Out of the compensation payable a sum or Rs. 60,000/- shall be invested in the Unit Trust of India for a period of five years.