Judgment :- Koshy, J. A six year old girl child while walking through Mannarkkad - Perinthalmanna road was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. TDV 3769 which was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The lorry was owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent. As a result of the accident, she suffered serious injuries like crush injury on the right leg, total loss of vascularity and extensive degloving injury on left thigh, amputation of right leg, wound on left thigh and knee and skin grafting also had to be done. She filed a claim petition through her guardian for Rs.7,29,100/= limited to Rupees Six lakhs as compensation. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and the lorry had valid coverage of insurance by the policy issued by the third respondent. But, tribunal only awarded a compensation of Rs.1,53,576/=. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal. 2. Ext.A4 is the wound certificate. The details of injuries noted are: "1. Crush injury (R) leg with degloving injury (R) leg held to position above a thin tag of skin. Distal portion and a vascular. 2. Degloving injury lateral aspect of (L) thigh with abrasion (L) iliac foss and abdomen." She was hospitalized for a period of about 40 days, i.e., got admitted on 8.3.1997 and was discharged on 16.4.1997. During the period, she underwent emergency BK amputation of right leg. Wound detriment and suturing to left thigh and knee wound. Skin grafting was done on 29.3.1997. Exts.A5 and A6 are treatment and disability certificates. In Ext.A7, it is certified by the doctor that the petitioner is having permanent partial disability of 70%. The tribunal found as follows at paragraph 17 of the order: "17. The injuries sustained to petitioner were grievous. She underwent below knee amputation of right leg and she uses artificial shoe to limit and contain the impact of amputation affecting mobility. She spent heavy medical bill amount for treatment purposes. The amputation of right leg below knee has caused disability as well as disfigurement and has affected marriage prospects of her in future life." 3. With regard to disability compensation, the tribunal held as follows at paragraph 20: "20. The injuries also require to be compensated. It has cast permanent disability of 70% on petitioner. The amputation of right leg below knee has caused disability as well as disfigurement and has affected marriage prospects of her in future life." 3. With regard to disability compensation, the tribunal held as follows at paragraph 20: "20. The injuries also require to be compensated. It has cast permanent disability of 70% on petitioner. However, the doctor is not examined and the disability is stated as partial permanent in nature. Taking a mediocre percentage of disability at 60%, a sum of Rs.75,000/= is allowed as compensation under the head disability. The injury also requires to be compensated. Allowing a sum of Rs.14,000/= is justified." We are of the opinion that tribunal was not justified in a mediocre assessment of permanent disability. There was amputation of right leg below knee and crush injury on the right leg. Skin grafting was done on the right leg. Even though contention of the counsel for the appellant to compensate has to be granted for 100% loss of earning power due to disability should be granted as the girl child with the disability will not be able to get any job in future and her life itself has become miserable. As found by the tribunal, she lost her prospects for married life or employment. She will be a liability to others. She has to depend on others for everything. She has to wear artificial leg and shoe. Disability certified is not disputed by the insurance company or any other respondent. Since she was only 6 year old at the time of accident, she has to change the artificial leg and shoe periodically. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no justification for awarding compensation for loss of earning power and disability "taking a mediocre percentage of disability at 60%" and awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-. She is entitled to compensation for 70% disability as certified by the doctor though it may amount to 100% loss of earning power and consequent loss of earning. 4. Tribunal did not award compensation on a scientific manner. She is entitled to compensation for 70% disability as certified by the doctor though it may amount to 100% loss of earning power and consequent loss of earning. 4. Tribunal did not award compensation on a scientific manner. A three member bench of the Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others v. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd.and another (JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 451), held that the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act is framed for the purpose of awarding compensation under section 163-A, but, it serves as a guideline for determination of compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the victim of the accident in that case was aged 32, considering the second schedule, Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted 17 as the multiplier. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others (JT 2002 (5) SC 74), the Apex Court held that, except in very rare cases, multiplier system should not be deviated from. The other methods, which were in vogue prior to the introduction of the multiplier system, were held to be no more good system. It was further held that normally the multiplier, as indicated in the second schedule, should be applied. Though the second schedule is found to be a safe guide for the purpose of calculation of the amount of compensation, in special circumstances, it can be varied. In that case, it was also held that if the multiplicand is very high, a lesser multiplier can be taken. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and another ((2003) 3 SCC 148), it was held that structured formula mentioned in the second schedule gives guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Deviation from the structured formula can be resorted to only in exceptional cases and ordinarily the above multiplier system should be followed. In 1994, when second schedule was framed, notional income of a non-earning person is fixed as Rs.15,000/= per annum. This accident is occurred in 1997. Hence, there is no need to enhance the notional income fixed in the second schedule for calculation of compensation. Under the second schedule, multiplier fixed for children below the age of 15 year is 15. If compensation is calculated for disability and loss of earning power due to disability is calculated, it will be Rs. Hence, there is no need to enhance the notional income fixed in the second schedule for calculation of compensation. Under the second schedule, multiplier fixed for children below the age of 15 year is 15. If compensation is calculated for disability and loss of earning power due to disability is calculated, it will be Rs. 15,000 x 70 x 15 = Rs.1,57,500/=. Tribunal has 100 awarded compensation for disability at Rs.75,000/= and injury compensation at Rs.14,000/=. If that is deducted, additional compensation payable will be Rs.68,500/=. 5. In the claim petition Rs.6,00,000/= was claimed as expenses for future medical treatment. No amount was awarded by the tribunal for future medical expenses. A three-member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (2002 AIR SCW 5345 - AIR 2003 SC 674) held as follows: "23. However, it is to be clearly understood that M.V. Act does not provide for passing of further award after final award is passed. Therefore, in a case where injury to a victim requires periodical medical expenses, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalization of the compensation proceedings. Hence, only alternative is that at the time of passing of final award, Tribunal/Court should consider such eventuality and fix compensation accordingly. No one can suggest that it is improper to take into account expenditure genuinely and reasonably required to be incurred for future medical expenses. Future medical expenses required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of fair guess work after taking into account increase in the cost of medical treatment." Here, accident occurred to the minor girl at the age of six. Artificial shoe and leg have to be replaced periodically. In Nagappa's case (supra), appellant was granted Rupees One lakh as additional compensation considering periodical replacement of artificial leg and for future treatment expenses. We are of the opinion that at least Rs.30,000/= should be granted in this case for future medical expenses like expenses for replacement of artificial shoe and leg etc. 6. It is contended that several operations were done. Skin grafting was done and she was hospitalized for more than 40 days and thereafter also she had to continue the treatment, but, only Rs.4,000/= was granted for treatment expenses apart from reimbursement on the basis of actual bills produced for purchase of medicines. 6. It is contended that several operations were done. Skin grafting was done and she was hospitalized for more than 40 days and thereafter also she had to continue the treatment, but, only Rs.4,000/= was granted for treatment expenses apart from reimbursement on the basis of actual bills produced for purchase of medicines. Rs.4,000/- is very low. No amount was granted for other treatment expenses. There were many expenses uncovered by the bills. We are of the opinion that at least Rs.1,500/- more should be given under this head. Compensation granted for disfigurement at Rs.5,000/= and for pain and suffering at Rs.15,000/=. Considering the amputation, crush injuries and various operations and mental agony, we are of the opinion that at least Rs.5,000/- more should be given under this head and compensation for attendant's expenses at Rs.3,000/= are very low as she needs continuous help of a third person throughout her life. It is also argued that compensation granted under all other heads like transportation etc. are very low. Considering the total amount granted we are not enhancing compensation granted on other heads. The additional amount of Rs.85,000/- shall be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, Rs.25,000/- shall be released to the guardian of the girl for medical expenses of the child. Balance shall be deposited in a nationalized bank for ten years and periodical interest shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the father till she attains majority and then to her after she attains majority. Appeal allowed partly.