J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal No. 2, at Ahmedabad (Tribunal for short, hereinafter), on 9-4-1980, in a Motor accident Claim Petition No. 2 of 1979. Thus, the appellant has invoked the aids of the provisions of Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 (act for short, hereinafter ). ( 2 ) THE appellant is the original minor claimant, who filed the aforesaid application for compensation of Rs. 9999. 00 for personal injuries, through his guardian and next friend, against the respondents, who are the original opponents. The injuries to the minor claimant arose out of a vehicular accident which occurred on 30-9-1978. On the unfateful day, the minor claimant was proceeding on his cycle on the correct side of the road. When he reached near bus stand, at Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad, one auto- rickshaw No. GTH- 6164 driven by original opponent no. l came from behind with excessive speed and knocked down the minor claimant. With the result, the minor claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, he claimed compensation of rs. 9999/ -. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS/original opponents appeared and resisted the claim application by filing written statement, at Ex. 23. It was, inter alia, contended that the minor claimant was responsible for the accident as he lost balance on the cycle. The amount of compensation claimed by the minor claimant was also challenged. ( 4 ) ON appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal was pleased to award Rs. 2,000. 00 by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation thereof with costs against the respondents/original opponents. ( 5 ) THE original claimant, being dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, has preferred this appeal. The appeal is restricted to the tune of rs. 7,999/- by way of compensation as the tribunal has awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000. 00 against original claim of the claimant to the tune of Rs. 9999. 00. The amount of Rs. 7,999. 00 which was disallowed by the Tribunal is claimed in this appeal. ( 6 ) IT is seriously contended on behalf of the appellant/original claimant that the Tribunal has, seriously, erred in disallowing the amount of Rs. 7,999. 00 for personal injuries. 9999. 00. The amount of Rs. 7,999. 00 which was disallowed by the Tribunal is claimed in this appeal. ( 6 ) IT is seriously contended on behalf of the appellant/original claimant that the Tribunal has, seriously, erred in disallowing the amount of Rs. 7,999. 00 for personal injuries. This contention appears to be justified in the light of the facts of the present case. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal has com rni tied a serious error in disallowing the amount of Rs. 7999. 00 by way of compensation to the minor claimant. It is an admitted fact that the minor claimant Lala was knocked down violently on account of the excessive speed of the auto-rickshaw driven by original opponent No. l. The minor claimant sustained various injuries. Father of the minor claimant was examined, at Ex. 29. He stated in his evidence that there was a fracture on the thigh of the left leg. He also stated that there were other injuries sustained by his minor son. The minor claimant was admitted in V. S. Hospital, Ahmedabad, as an indoor patient for three days. He was aged about 13 at the time of the accident. Subsequently he was also examined by an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Nand Kishor Parikh. The certificate issued by him is produced, at Ex. 34. According to the certificate given by Dr. Parikh, the minor claimant has sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 10 per cent in his left leg. The evidence of Dr. Parikh is discarded by the tribunal. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the evidence of Dr. Parikh. Medical case papers are produced, at Ex. 43. The finding of the Tribunal that there was no nexus between the disability and the injuries sustained by the minor applicant in the aforesaid road accident is, totally, erroneous. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of Dr. Parikh. It is very clear from the evidence of dr. Parikh, an orthopaedic surgeon, that the minor applicant sustained serious injuries and permanent partial disability to the extent of 10% on account of the aforesaid road accident. It is also an admitted fact that the minor claimant sustained a scar on the left leg. It is also an admitted fact that on accountof the accident muscles on the left leg were exposed. It is also an admitted fact that the minor claimant sustained a scar on the left leg. It is also an admitted fact that on accountof the accident muscles on the left leg were exposed. ( 8 ) IN view of the evidence on record, it becomes, explicitly, clear that the minor claimant has sustained serious injuries because of which he has sustained permanent partial disability to the extent of 10%. There is a permanent scar. The applicant was hospitalised for three days and thereafter he was undergoing treatment as outdoor patient. Having regard to the nature and number of injuries and the extent of permanent partial disability and the tender age of the calaimant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded full amount of Rs. 9999. 00 by way of compensation instead of the meagre amount of Rs. 2,000. 00. The tribunal has, seriously erred in refusing the amount of Rs. 7,999. 00by way of compensation to the minor claimant. ( 9 ) IN the light of the facts of the present case, the minor claimant is found entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 7,999. 00 by way of consolidated compensation with 12% interest from the date of the application till realisation. ( 10 ) THE respondents are directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 7,999. 00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till realisation with costs before the concerned Tribunal. The concerned Tribunal is directed to invest the additional amount of rs. 7,999/- with interest in a national security or in fixed deposit of any nationalised bank for a period of ten years and the original claimant would be entitled to interest which shall accrue due thereon periodically. ( 11 ) THE original claimant shall not be entitled to create any charge of encumbrance on the said national security or fixed deposit receipt without prior permission of the concerned Tribunal. ( 12 ) THE amount of cost shall be paid to the original claimant, who is now attained the age of majority, by an account payee cheque. ( 13 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. .