ORDER 1. Case is listed for orders on IA No. 1380/08 which is application for dispensing with service of respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for appellant prays for dispensing with services of respondents No.1 and 2. Application is allowed. Services of respondents No.1 and 2 are dispensed with. 2. Also heard on IA No. 10701/07 which is application for condonation of delay. There is delay of 503 days. Appellant is minor. It is a case of gross negligence on the part of guardian of the appellant in filing the appeal with inordinate delay for which appellant cannot be allowed to suffer, therefore in view of the fact that interest of minor is involved, the application is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of parties, heard on merits. 4. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant against an award dated 3.3.2006 passed by I MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 59/2004. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation as Rs. 13,264/- by way of compensation for the injury which appellant sustained in an accident but awarded a sum of Rs. 6,632/- on account of contributory negligence. According to the claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in compensation awarded and if so to what extent? 5. As observed supra, it is a injury case. Learned counsel for appellant submits that on 20.3.2003 the appellant was travelling in a Qualis car which met with an accident with another vehicle which was bearing No. MP09 KC 2584, as a result appellant sustained two fracture in right leg. Appellant was hospitalised at M.Y. hospital from 21.3.2003 to 24.7.2003 where- appel1ant was operated and rod was inserted. Again he was hospitalised at Vidisha from 8.4.2003 to 22.4.2003. Learned counsel submits breakup of the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is as under: Rs. 1,863/- towards medical expenses Rs. 11,400/- towards general damages 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Tribunal deducted 50% of the awarded amount on account of contributory negligence on the part of appellant. Again he was hospitalised at Vidisha from 8.4.2003 to 22.4.2003. Learned counsel submits breakup of the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is as under: Rs. 1,863/- towards medical expenses Rs. 11,400/- towards general damages 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Tribunal deducted 50% of the awarded amount on account of contributory negligence on the part of appellant. Learned counsel submits that since the appellant was minor and travelling in the Qualis car, therefore, there was no negligence on the part of appellant. At the most it was a case of composite negligence. It is also submitted that amount awarded is on lower side. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that after due appreciation of evidence on record learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation and has also rightly held that it was a case of contributory negligence. 8. After due appreciation of evidence on record, this Court is of the view that since appellant was minor and travelling in the Qualis car bearing registration No. MP 04 HB 184, therefore, there is no justification on the part of learned Tribunal to hold that appellant was equally liable for the accident. In view of this, findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be allowed to sustain and are set aside. So far as question of enhancement is concerned, looking to long hospitalisation and on account of general damages, the amount awarded appears to be on lower side, therefore a case of enhancement is made out and in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 33,368/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of application and shall remain deposited in the name of appellant till he attains majority. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.