JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Tribunal, Pondicherry in MACTOP.No.677 of 2001 dated 14.06.2002. 2. The appellant is the claimant before the Lower Court. The Lower Court had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation against the claim of Rs.3 lakhs made by the claimant. Therefore, the appellant/claimant had filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. On 02.04.2001 at about 12.15 hours when the claimant along with her father was proceeding from East to West on the Maraimalai Adigal Salai in a TVS-50 bearing registration No.PY-01-K-7981, a jeep belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 bearing registration No.PYK 5026, driven by the third respondent was going before the claimants vehicle and all of a sudden, the third respondent applied brake. Due to this unexpected event, the claimants father could not have control over his vehicle and the same hit on the backside of the jeep in which course the claimant was injured and had lost her seven teeth. The claimant claimed Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation. The respondent Corporation denied the averments of the claimant and stated in the counter that the claimants father alone was not careful in driving the vehicle and that two motor cycles bearing registration Nos.TN-32-X-4231 and PY-01-N-2085 colluded and in order to avoid hitting the persons who fell from the motor cycle, the third respondent had applied the break. The respondent Corporation had stated that the accident had occurred only due to the carelessness of the claimants father and not due to the third respondent. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, framed the following issues: "1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent and abrupt stoppage of the vehicle belonging to respondents 1 and 2? and 2. What was the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and what should be the quantum of compensation if any awardable in her favour?" 3. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and six documents were marked and on the side of the respondent Corporation, two witnesses were examined and no document was marked. and 2. What was the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and what should be the quantum of compensation if any awardable in her favour?" 3. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and six documents were marked and on the side of the respondent Corporation, two witnesses were examined and no document was marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the jeep belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 was responsible for the accident and awarded Rs.30,000/-as compensation, the details are as under: Medical Expenses - Rs.25,000/- Pain and Sufferings - Rs. 5,000/- Total - Rs.30,000/- 4. Since the appeal has been preferred against the grant of lesser compensation by the Lower Court by the claimant and the respondents did not prefer any cross-objection in this appeal regarding the rash and negligence of the driver, the third respondent herein and against the quantum awarded by the Lower Court, the only point to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the enhancement as claimed by the appellant/claimant has to be awarded? 5. The appellant/claimant is a minor girl. She had applied for the compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident and the disability caused due to those injuries. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit in his argument that the claimant had suffered serious injuries on her face in the motor accident and her seven teeth were lost in the accident and she suffered disfiguration of face and this permanent disability would certainly tell against her prospects in the marriage and the confidence for the future life. He would further submit in his argument that the Lower Court had not looked into these aspects, but had summarily fixed Rs.25,000/-for permanent disability and Rs.5,000/- for pain and sufferings and had rejected the remaining claim without any basis and he would also draw the attention of the court that the Lower Court had not discussed the evidence as well as the disability certificate produced on the side of the claimant. Therefore, he prayed for the enhancement of compensation in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, he prayed for the enhancement of compensation in accordance with law. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit in his argument that the Lower Court is right in awarding the compensation at Rs.30,000/-since most of the teeth lost by the claimant was at the age of 8 in the accident and they are likely to regrow and there may not be any disability for the claimant and the compensation to be awarded to the claimant would be in respect of pain and sufferings alone and the compensation awarded at Rs.30,000/-would be sufficient for that purpose and therefore, the award of compensation need not be revised and the appeal may be dismissed. 8. On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced on either side and the evidence produced before the Lower Court, we could see that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent and thereby the respondents 1 and 2 are vicariously liable to compensate the claimant. There is no dispute in the liability of the respondents to compensate the claimant. At the same time, we have to see whether the compensation of Rs.30,000/-granted by the lower court to the claimant is sufficient and in accordance with law. The judgment of the lower court would go to show that the evidence of PWs. and the permanent disability certificate produced as Ex.A.5 were not discussed. The Lower court had simply fixed the compensation without following any norms. Therefore, awarding of compensation at Rs.25,000/- for disability and Rs.5,000/-for pain and sufferings is not in accordance with law. 9. While revising the compensation awarded by the Lower court, we have to see the disability certificate as spoken by the Doctor-P.W.3. P.W.3 would speak to the effect that Ex.A.5 was issued by him for a total disability of 30%. He had denied in his cross-examination that he did not issue the disability certificate without any basis. He had also denied that the loss of seven teeth by the claimant in the accident would not affect the claimant and it would not result in medical disability and therefore, we could see that the loss of seven teeth as spoken by P.W.1 and P.W.3-Doctor would certainly result in the disability of 30% for the claimant. He had also denied that the loss of seven teeth by the claimant in the accident would not affect the claimant and it would not result in medical disability and therefore, we could see that the loss of seven teeth as spoken by P.W.1 and P.W.3-Doctor would certainly result in the disability of 30% for the claimant. Whether this would result in disfiguration of face or the future prospects of marriage to the claimant has to be seen. The evidence of P.W.3-Doctor had not disclosed to the effect that the loss of such seven teeth would result in disfiguration of face. Therefore, it can be easily construed that the claimant will not suffer any future prospects of marriage in her life. Therefore, we have to see the calculation of compensation for the disability 30% and for pain and sufferings. There is no doubt that seven teeth were lost in the accident and the Lower court ought to have awarded 7xRs.5000=Rs.35,000/-towards compensation for pain and sufferings to the claimant as loss of one tooth amounting to a separate grievous injury. Similarly the disability caused to the claimant at 30% should also been compensated. Admittedly, the girl is a student and not an earning person at the time of accident. Therefore, we have to assess the compensation on the basis of non-pecuniary loss. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,000/- per 1% could be considered as suitable way to assess the compensation. When we calculate so, the compensation for the disability would come at Rs.30,000/-. The loss of amenities due to the sudden loss of teeth in the accident should also been considered by the Lower court. When we calculate for the said amenities lost by the claimant, it is just to award a sum of Rs.10,000/-on the said head. Therefore, on an overall assessment, we could see that a sum of Rs.75,000/-should have been awarded by the lower court in favour of the claimant, whereas a sum of Rs.30,000/- alone was awarded. Therefore, this court is of the view that a sum of Rs.45,000/- has to be awarded as enhanced compensation to the claimant which is to be paid by the respondents with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate cost. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and a sum of Rs.45,000/- is awarded as enhanced compensation with proportionate cost.