JUDGMENT 1. - The case has come up for admission. Both the parties agree to dispose of the case at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal. 3. This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by injured Kum. Manisha D/o Shri Atar Singh, for enhancement of claim against the award dated August 8, 2003, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 167/2001, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,51,645/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant-appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment published in Zaved v. Lalji Yadav, 2002 (1) TAC 835) , the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,12,000/- has been enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- for amputation of leg below the knee of a child of 5 years. Learned counsel submits that the amount of compensation should be awarded in view of the aforesaid citation and looking to the fact that the left hand above elbow joint of the girl child of 9 years of age has been amputated and she has been found with 70% permanent disability and has to undergo pain and suffering, discomfort, disappointment on account of disability and had to face social indignation apart from loss of source of livelihood. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation without considering the various factors based on concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995 ACJ 366 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company has placed reliance in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others (2003 ACJ 12) wherein amputation of leg of a grown up person has been quantified as Rs. 2,00,000/- by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such the amount of compensation is not required to be enhanced. 6. In view of the rival submissions, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra), as under:- "9. 6. In view of the rival submissions, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra), as under:- "9. Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 7. On application of the aforesaid guidelines in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed that the injured was of 9 years age at the time of accident. She had to carry on with the permanent disability for the whole life and was rendered handicapped in selection of his future occupation and difficulty to do any work and that she had to come across discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in her day to day life and even in discharging her normal social obligations. Therefore, in view of all these factors, the amount of compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 2,51,645/- to Rs. 3,51,645/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 10.10.2003. 8. Accordingly the award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,51,645/- is substituted by Rs. 3,51,645/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 10.10.2003. 2,51,645/- to Rs. 3,51,645/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 10.10.2003. 8. Accordingly the award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,51,645/- is substituted by Rs. 3,51,645/- from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 10.10.2003. The amount so increased shall entail interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of appeal to be paid within three months failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Appeal disposed of. *******