Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation against the Judgment and Decree dated 1. 2007 made in MCOP No.624 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge),Tiruvannamalai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The respondent / claimant was injured in a motor accident on 03.03.1998 at about 5.00 p.m. He was walking along the left side in the Tiruvannamalai-Sathanoor Dam Road near Veeranam Village Muniappankoil. At that time, a bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The appellant / Transport Corporation resisted the claim. On pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation or not? b) Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation and awarded a compensation of Rs.76,250/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:- Rupees Loss of income 56,250/- Pain and suffering 5,000/- Medical expenses 5,000/- Special damages 10,000/- Total.. 76,250/- ========== Aggrieved by the award, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, one Purushothaman, driver of the bus, was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the father of the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.Raveendran. Ex.P1 is the copy of First Information Report. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, one Purushothaman, driver of the bus, was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the father of the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.Raveendran. Ex.P1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspection Report. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P4 are the photographs of the claimant. Ex.P5 is the Permanent Disability Certificate. Ex.P6 is the X-ray. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation. The finding of the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. 5. The injured claimant was 3 years old at the time of accident. On the date of accident, there was a festival. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained injuries on the left foot starting from ankle to fore foot with bleeding amputation of little toe apart from 2 abrasions. Ex.P3 is the Accident Register, which discloses the above. P.W.2, the Doctor, has examined the claimant and according to him the big toe and the second toe had been amputated and 3 toes are without any movement. Ex.P4 are the photographs showing the injuries. Ex.P3 also discloses the traumatic amputation of middle toe only. P.W.2, the Doctor, has assessed the disability of the claimant at 45%. There is no wound certificate filed. Taking into consideration the above factors, the Tribunal was of the view that the disability assessed by the Doctor is excessive and therefore, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 25%. The claimant was 3 years old at the time of accident. No documents filed to prove the income of the parents of the claimant. Hence, the Tribunal adopted the notional annual income at Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 as per the Second Schedule and calculated the total income at Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/-x 15). Thereafter, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of income at Rs.56,250/- for 25% disability (25% of Rs.2,25,000/-). Hence, the Tribunal adopted the notional annual income at Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 as per the Second Schedule and calculated the total income at Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/-x 15). Thereafter, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of income at Rs.56,250/- for 25% disability (25% of Rs.2,25,000/-). The Tribunal has correctly adopted the notional annual income at Rs.15,000/- and adopted the correct multiplier of 15 as per the provision of the Act and determined the loss of income at Rs.56,250/-for 25% disability. Normally the Courts award Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-per percentage of disability. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income at Rs.56,250/-is also very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. No material or evidence or any compelling reason given by the counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company to take a different view from the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the injuries stated above, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards medical expenses. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the claimant would have definitely incurred expenditure towards medicines. The amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses is also very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards special damages on the ground that the claimant was disabled and handicapped. After taking into consideration the injuries stated above and also the age of the claimant, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.10,000/-towards special damages and hence it is confirmed. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Supreme Court has considered the amount of compensation to be awarded in respect of the deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and 10 to 15 years in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SYED IBRHIM AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 103, wherein it has been held as follows: "7. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by the parents during the childs life time. SYED IBRHIM AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 103, wherein it has been held as follows: "7. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by the parents during the childs life time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly v. Jenkins (1913) AC 1 and Lord Atkinson said thus: ".... all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact-there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them." 8. This Court in Lata Wadhwas case while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years. 9. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation." The ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case and hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.76,250/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs. 7. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.76,250/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to invest the same in any Nationalised Bank proximate to the place of the residence of the minors guardian and father, Vijayaraj, for a period of three years and renewable thereafter till the minor attains majority. The guardian of the minor is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months.