Judgment :- Poongothai, the claimant, is the appellant herein. For the injuries sustained by her due to the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, she filed a claim petition seeking for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- before the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/-along with interest at the rate 12 per cent from the date of order till the date of realisation. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment impugned on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate and the interest should have been from the date of the petition and not from the date of the order. 4. Poogothai, aged about 19 years, was a school-going student. She was studying Plus Two in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Villupuram. On 31.1.88 at about 5.30 P.M., she went to attend tuition in her bi-cycle. While she was returning near Panruti Saraswathi Press, the Tractor bearing registration No. DNF 9373 belonging to the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against her. Hence, she sustained grievous injuries and suffered a fracture on her left leg ankle. She was given treatment in various hospitals. Ultimately, she suffered permanent disability on her left leg. Hence, she claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5. This claim was contested by the respondents, namely, owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, by stating that the driver of the Tractor was not negligent. 6. However, the Tribunal, on analysing the evidence of the claimant P.W.I and Dr. Angamuthu P.W. 2 and Exs. A1 to A-21. the documents marked on the side of the claimant, and the evidence of R.W.I driver. R.W. 2 Muralikrishnan and Ex. R-1 Insurance Policy marked on the side of the respondents, concluded that the driver of the Tractor was negligent and directed the 2nd respondent National Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of the first respondent, the owner of the tractor. 7. The main ground of attack on the judgment impugned is that despite the materials available on record to show that the injured claimed Rs. 26,500/- on the head pain and sufferings and Rs. 75,000/- for permanent disability, the Tribunal, without any rhyme or reason, fixed a very meagre amount of Rs. 7. The main ground of attack on the judgment impugned is that despite the materials available on record to show that the injured claimed Rs. 26,500/- on the head pain and sufferings and Rs. 75,000/- for permanent disability, the Tribunal, without any rhyme or reason, fixed a very meagre amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and that too, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the order, instead of from the date of the petition. 8. Heard the counsel for the parties. 9. On going through the judgment impugned and the connected records, I am of the view that the Tribunal is correct in holding that the driver of the tractor was negligent, on the basis of the acceptable evidence of P.W.I, the claimant and Ex. A-19 F.I.R. and that she would be entitled to a consolidated amount of compensation. 10. P.W. 2 Doctor, who gave treatment to the injured, deposed before the Tribunal, Exs. A-1 to A-18 were marked to show that the injured had taken treatment in different hospitals. Initially, the victim was admitted in Cuddalore General Hospital, where she was treated by P.W. 2 Doctor. Then, she was taken to Nallan Hospitals at Pondicherry. Even then, the wound did not get cured. So, she was taken to Puthur where further treatment was given. This aspect had been clearly established by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 Exs. A-1 to A-18. 11. According to Doctor P.W. 2, the permanent disability that the victim suffered on her left leg was 35 per cent. Due to the disability, she became unfit to walk freely and to ride cycle. 12. Taking into consideration all these materials, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/-. 13. As a matter of fact, originally claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. During the pendency of the petition, the claimant filed another application to amend the petition to enhance the claim to Rs. 1,00,000/-, on the basis that the permanent disability was 65 per cent. But, however, P.W. 2, would say through the disability certificate that she suffered the disability of only 35 per cent. Therefore, the Tribunal looked into the over all picture and awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Since the vehicle, which hit the injured was insured with the 2nd respondent National Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent was directed to pay the said amount. 14. Therefore, the Tribunal looked into the over all picture and awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Since the vehicle, which hit the injured was insured with the 2nd respondent National Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent was directed to pay the said amount. 14. Therefore, there is nothing to indicate that the amount was fixed without considering the relevant circumstances. However, since the victim injured, being a girl of 18 years, is said to have lost the marriage prospects, I deem it fit to enhance the amount to Rs. 75,000/-. 15. The Tribunal felt that the enquiry was dragged on at the instance of the claimant by filing amendment petitions one after another. Though the claim petition was filed in the year 1988, the judgment came to be delivered only on 13.3.92 and therefore, the second respondent would be liable to pay the amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the order and not from the date of the petition. 16. This approach of the Tribunal, in my view, may not be proper. The amendment petitions were filed by the claimant neither with the purpose of dragging on the proceedings further nor to gain interest amount for a longer period. 17. Those petitions for amendment were filed by the claimant and the same were contested by the other parties. Ultimately, the amendment petitions were allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimant cannot be found fault with by holding that she was responsible for the delay. 18. Under these circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the claimant/appellant is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of petition till the date of the order of the Tribunal and thereafter, at 12 per cent till the date of realisation. 19. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed. No costs.