E.Padmanabhan, J.: The above appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chennai (Vth Judge, Court of Small Causes), dated 4.4.2000 made in M.C.O.P. No.917 of 1997, by the insurer of the vehicle being aggrieved by the award. 2. This Court ordered notice of motion on 12.12.2000 and granted interim stay of further proceedings of the said award on condition that the appellant deposits 25% of the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal within a period of eight weeks. This Court called for the records relating to the said claim petition by order dated 12.4.2001. As per the orders of the Honorable The Chief Justice, the above appeal is posted before this Division Bench. 3. Heard Mr.M.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.C. Munuswamy for Mr.M. Swamikannu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. None appears for the 2nd respondent, who remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. The first respondent is the claimant before the Claims Tribunal. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the appellant herein is the insurer of the vehicle. The claimant in all claimed Rs.16 lakhs as compensation alleging that the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s vehicle by its driver. The first respondent remained absent. The 2nd respondent, insurer, alone contested the claim petition. The Tribunal below awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,87,500 under various heads by its judgment and award dated 4.4.2000. Being aggrieved, the insurer of the vehicle has come by way of appeal. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the Claims Tribunal. 5. The claimant, who was aged around 17 years on 17.4.1996 the date of the accident, had filed the claim petition pleading that the first respondent’s vehicle bearing Registration No.TNJ 3749, a lorry, was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, had caused the accident. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained number of grievous injuries. The claimant’s left leg above the knee was amputated. The claimant also suffered dislocation of bone, left ankle, knee, both shoulders and right hand elbow, besides suffered head injury and other multiple grievous injuries in the accident. The claimant was admitted in the hospital on 17.9.1996, the date of the accident, and he was treated as an impatient till l7.10.1996 in the Government General Hospital, Madras. The claimant also suffered dislocation of bone, left ankle, knee, both shoulders and right hand elbow, besides suffered head injury and other multiple grievous injuries in the accident. The claimant was admitted in the hospital on 17.9.1996, the date of the accident, and he was treated as an impatient till l7.10.1996 in the Government General Hospital, Madras. The claimant was admitted in the Vijaya Hospital on 7.10.1996 and continued further treatment till 2.1.1997. 6. The claimant, a school student, could not attend the school nor he could go to work nor he could sit or stand or walk nor he could use his hand. On that basis, the claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.16 lakhs under various heads such as transportation to hospitals, extra nourishment; damage to clothing and cycle; towards materials; cost of private treatment; medicine and hospital expenses; labour pain and suffering, loss of income; loss of acceptance to proper marital alliance; additional transportation expenses; deprivation of participation in sports and games; mental agony and torture due to amputation; compensation for pain and suffering; compensation for continuing permanent disability and compensation for the loss of earning power. 7. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, excepting a bald denial with respect to the accident as well as the liability, the respondent- insurer contended that the claim petition is not sustainable and the claim of Rs.16 lakhs is highly excessive. Though the insurer reserved a right to file an additional counter, but for reasons best known, the insurer has not filed an additional counter. 8. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as C.W.1 one Mehaboob Yousuf as C.W.2 an eye witness and Dr.J.R. Thiyagarajan as C.W.3. The claimant marked 16 exhibits, which includes five discharge summaries, medical bills, lab reports, bills relating to purchase of medicine, bills regarding transportation, medical opinion, school certificate, first information report, rough sketch, disability certificate as well as X-ray. Neither the insurer nor the owner of the vehicle have examined any witnesses. 9. As regards the negligence, here and now we have to point out that the learned counsel not only did not advance any contention, but also accepted that the findings of the Claims Tribunal is a well considered finding and he is not challenging the same. The learned counsel only challenged the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal below. As regards the negligence, here and now we have to point out that the learned counsel not only did not advance any contention, but also accepted that the findings of the Claims Tribunal is a well considered finding and he is not challenging the same. The learned counsel only challenged the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal below. The learned counsel in fact fairly stated that he is not challenging the findings regarding negligence. 10. As seen from the evidence of C.W.3 the claimant, who is aged 20 years, his leg had been amputated six inches below the hip joint. The claimant has also suffered injury in his shoulder as well as right hand. Towards the loss of leg and injury to the shoulder, which has restricted the movement of the hand, C.W.3 had deposed that disability is 90%. Ex.C-15 is the certificate. That apart Exs.C-1 to C-5, C-10 and C-11 would show the grievous nature of injuries sustained at the age of 17 years by the claimant, a school going youth. The permanent disability is arrived at 90% and this is not being challenged by the counsel for the appellant. On that basis, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation. 11. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.14,87,500 under various heads as detailed hereunder: Towards Transportation Rs. 50,000.00 Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 2,00,000.00 Loss of Income Rs. 47,500.00 Towards Nourishment Rs. 40,000.00 Towards Pain & Suffering as a result of Amputation Rs. 1,00,000.00 Towards pain & suffering for other grievous injuries Rs. 1,00,000.00 Towards permanent disability Rs. 2,00,000.00 Compensation for loss of earning power Rs. 6,00,000.00 Loss of expectation of proper martial life & alliance Rs. 1,50,000.00 Total Rs. 14,87,500.00 The Tribunal also awarded interest at 12% per annum. 12. In this appeal only the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded are being challenged. 13. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal: “(1) What is the quantum of compensation, which the claimant is entitled to for the injuries and permanent disability sustained? (2) At what rate the claimant is entitled to payment of interest? (3) To what relief, if any?” 14. Taking up the second point for consideration, the Tribunal has awarded 12% interest on the total compensation of Rs.14,87,500 awarded by it. (2) At what rate the claimant is entitled to payment of interest? (3) To what relief, if any?” 14. Taking up the second point for consideration, the Tribunal has awarded 12% interest on the total compensation of Rs.14,87,500 awarded by it. In this respect, the counsel for the appellant relied upon the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum v. The New India Assurance Company Limited, (2001)1 Supreme 5 , where the Supreme Court laid down that it is reasonable to grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim made by the claimant and till date of payment. 15. In the light of the said pronouncement, the learned counsel for the claimant fairly stated that the award of interest at 12% per annum by the Claims Tribunal could be modified and interest be awarded at 9% per annum. Hence, we hold that the claimant is entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition and till the date of payment. 16. Taking up the first point for consideration, the following factors we shall not lose sight of: “(i) The claimant is just 17 years of age on the date of the accident; (ii) The claimant wa studying in the 9th standard in the High School. This is clear from the School Leaving Certificate, Ex.C-12; (iii) The permanent disability, which the claimant has suffered has been assessed at 90%; (iv) The right leg of the claimant had been amputated above knee and six inches below the hip joint and there is restriction in his shoulder movement considerably.” 17. It is the opinion of C.W.3, the Doctor, Dr.J.R. Thiyagarajan, that no artificial limb could be fixed and totally the claimant’s movement is impaired. The claimant has undergone treatment from 17.9.1996 to 2.1.1997 as inpatient in the Government General Hospital and in Vijaya Hospital. The claimant also was hospitalized in MIOT hospital as seen from Exs.C-3 and C-4, C.W.3 had also spoken about it in detail. The claimant was once again admitted in the MIOT Hospital on various dates even subsequently also after the earlier discharge. The Claimant had undergone several operations. 18. The claimant also was hospitalized in MIOT hospital as seen from Exs.C-3 and C-4, C.W.3 had also spoken about it in detail. The claimant was once again admitted in the MIOT Hospital on various dates even subsequently also after the earlier discharge. The Claimant had undergone several operations. 18. As a result of the amputation, the injury in his leg continues and there is oozing of liquid which continues to flow from the amoputated leg even on the date when the trial was in progress before the Tribunal below. Apart from that, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries on his shoulders, right hand elbow, head and various other multiple internal and external injuries, besides suffering injury to his head and chest. The details of injuries as spoken to by C.W.1 is not in dispute nor it could be challenged as not only C.W.1 and C.W.3, but also Exs.C-1 to C-5, C-6, C-10 and C-11 would speak volumes in favour of the claimant. 19. It is the evidence of C.W.1 claimant, that he is totally immobilized. He has to stop his educational career. He is unable to sit or stand or lie down or walk without the assistance of others and he is still undergoing treatment. The claimant also has suffered disability in his shoulder as a result of which he could not swing his hand and he could not use his shoulder even to use his crutches so that his body weight could be thrown on the crutches. Practically the claimant had been rendered a pulp as a result of the accident and after nearly two years and odd, even on the date of the trial, the claimant’s condition is so pathetic and so shocking and he needs to continue treatment. 20. This is the reason the expert had opined that the permanent disability is 90%. It is not as if the claimant is above the middle age, but he was just 17 years on the date of the accident. For all purposes throughout his career, has to depend on one or more persons to attend on him even for bare necessities such as having a bath or go to the toilet or to the hospital or for further treatment as rehabilitation by fixing an artificial limb is not possible. The claimant had undergone more than half a dozen surgeries and skin grafting. The claimant had undergone more than half a dozen surgeries and skin grafting. In the lights of the said facts, we have to assess the compensation. 21. Ex.C-10 is the certificate issued by the leading Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr.Mohandass. Though there was an attempt to fix an artificial limb even at a cost of Rs.1.25 lakhs, it was not successful. The claimant had deposed that he is not able to raise, move and stand and not able to walk without any assistance. He will not be able to travel by bus or other transport vehicles. The claimant also had deposed that he will not get married at all. This is a deprivation of marital life and his chance of getting married is totally bleak. The claimant also deposed that as a result of the head injury, he gets headache and also he loses consciousness very often. C.W.3, Dr.Thiyagarajan, had deposed that the claimant has no limb on the right side and he had suffered shoulder injury. The evidence of C.W.3 had not been challenged seriously excepting one suggestion that the 90% disability assessment is excessive, which the said Doctor had denied. 22. In the light of the said injuries and permanent disability, taking into consideration of the age, the permanent disability being 90%, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation and awarded Rs.14,87,500. As regards the total compensation awarded towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal, though assessed it at Rs.10 lakhs, has awarded only Rs.6 lakhs as the claimant has confined his claim only to the extent of Rs.6 lakhs under this head. It is well settled that even though a claim may be reduced in one or more heads, but it could be granted under other heads also. The compensation for loss of earning power alone was arrived at Rs.6 lakhs is too meager a sum as the claimant is just 20 years on the date of the judgment and 17 years on the date of the accident, but for the accident, his average age would be more than 65 years and he would have lived for another 40 years atleast. Therefore, the loss of earning power arrived at by the Tribunal below at Rs.6 lakh is far below. 23. Nowadays it is found that a last grade servant earns Rs.5,000 and the Tribunal had estimated the loss of income for 30 years. Therefore, the loss of earning power arrived at by the Tribunal below at Rs.6 lakh is far below. 23. Nowadays it is found that a last grade servant earns Rs.5,000 and the Tribunal had estimated the loss of income for 30 years. It should have been assessed by adopting 35 years as multiplier and on that basis, we award Rs.6.5 lakhs under this head. The Tribunal had disallowed Rs.10,000 towards transportation to the hospital. This in our view cannot be sustained. The claimant is totally disabled and he should have been transported from the place of accident to the hospital and from there to other hospitals. The Tribunal ought to have granted atleast Rs.4,000 instead of disallowing the entire Rs.10,000. Hence, we award Rs.4,000 towards transportation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000 towards extra nourishment. We find that the award of Rs.40,000 is just and reasonable. 24. The Tribunal disallowed damage to the cycle and dress materials. The claimant was on his cycle at the time of the accident and in the nature of injury sustained the cycle also suffered damage. The Tribunal should have awarded at least Rs.600. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2 lakhs, being the cost of treatment and hospital expenses. Taking into consideration of the number of operations undergone and the period during which the claimant was hospitalized, we reduce the award under this heading to a sum of Rs.1.75 lakhs as just and reasonable compensation as the claimant has not produced receipts to cover Rs.2 lakhs. For the pain and suffering and loss of income to the family members, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.47,500. This in our view is on the higher side and we reduce it to Rs.15,000, which would be the just and reasonable amount, since it is found that the father is working in the midday meals scheme and the mother is a house wife. Therefore, taking into consideration of the salary earned, we award Rs.15,000 under this head as just and reasonable compensation towards loss of income to the family members and their sufferings. 25. As regards the loss of expectation of proper marital life and alliance, the Tribunal has awarded just Rs.1.5 lakhs. In our view, even this is on the higher side and we reduce it to Rs.50,000 which would be the just and proper compensation. The Tribunal has awarded additional transport expenses of Rs.50,000 though Rs.75,000 is claimed. 25. As regards the loss of expectation of proper marital life and alliance, the Tribunal has awarded just Rs.1.5 lakhs. In our view, even this is on the higher side and we reduce it to Rs.50,000 which would be the just and proper compensation. The Tribunal has awarded additional transport expenses of Rs.50,000 though Rs.75,000 is claimed. Transport expenses not only started from the time of the accident and it continues and it will continue throughout the claimant’s life. Therefore, the award of Rs.50,000 cannot be held to be excessive. 26. The Tribunal had disallowed the claim under the heading inability to participate in sports and games. Any youth and particularly school going youth of normal health definitely takes part in some games or physical exercises or compensation or in ACC/NCC, while at school. This accident has totally disabled the appellant and under this heading a nominal sum of Rs.5,400 is awarded. The award of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and torture due to amputation as claimed cannot be held to be excessive. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering at Rs.1 lakh also cannot be held to be excessive. The compensation towards continuing permanent disability has been assessed at Rs.2 lakhs by the Tribunal below. We do not find any reason to interfere with this award. 27. In all we assess the compensation under various heads and award damages as detailed here: Towards Loss of Income Rs. 6,50,000.00 Transportation Expenses Rs. 4,000.00 Towards Extra Nourishment Rs. 40,000.00 Towards Damage to Cycle & Dress materials Rs. 600.00 Towards Medicine and Hospitalization Expenses Rs. 1,75,000.00 Towards suffering & Loss of income to family members Rs. 15,000.00 Towards loss of marital life Rs. 50,000.00 Towards Additional Transportation Expenses Rs. 50,000.00 Towards inability to participate in Sports and Games Rs. 5,400.00 Towards mental agony Rs. 1,00,000.00 Towards Pain & Suffering Rs. 1,00,000.00 Towards continuing permanent Disability Rs. 2,00,000.00 Total Rs. 13,90,000.00 28. In the result, we modify the award of the Claims Tribunal and the revised total compensation payable is Rs.13,90,000 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. Amounts, if any already paid, shall be given credit. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above, and in other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed but without costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.