JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed by the claimant against the Judgment and Award dated 05.04.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Camp Kushalgarh District Banswara in MACT Case No. 21 of 2003 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- plus interest @ 6% percent as compensation in favour of the claimant and against non-claimants No. 1 to 3. Brief facts of this case, are that on 22.07.2002, at about 6.00 P.M. a Dumper bearing RJ-03G/1031 which was being driven by its driver Ladji (respondent non-claimant No. 3) rashly and negligently at a high speed from the side of Umedpura, Banswara hit Motorcycle bearing No. RJ-03-2M/3403, which was driven by Bhura Ram and Praveen his son of 8 years old was sitting thereon. It was coming from Anandpuri side in right direction. As a result of which, Bhura Ram (aged 28 years) sustained head injury and Praveen (aged 8 years) sustained fracture of his right leg and other multiple injuries on boy. Both the injured persons were brought to the hospital at Anandpuri in serious condition for treatment. In was alleged that M/s. Jain Construction Company was the owner of Dumper and it was insured with the respondent non-claimant No. 2-Insurance Company. It was stated that the injured Bhura Ram was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 2000/- per month and Praveen was studying in sixth class at the time of accident. A report of the accident was lodged at P.S. Anandpuri against non-claimant No. 3 Ladji (driver of the Dumper) for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC. Bhura Ram and Praveen both filed separate claim petitions, which were respectively registered as MACT Cases No. 20/2003 and MACT Case No. 21/2003. The claim petition filed on behalf of Praveen was presented by his father being natural guardian as the appellant was minor at that time. 2. After service of notices, non-claimant No. 1 (owner of the Dumper) and non-claimant No. 3 (Driver of the Dumper) filed a joint reply to the claim petition denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and further stated that the compensation claimed by the appellant is exorbitant. It was stated that as the dumper was insured, therefore, if any liability of compensation arises, the insurance company shall be responsible for it. 3. It was stated that as the dumper was insured, therefore, if any liability of compensation arises, the insurance company shall be responsible for it. 3. A reply to the claim petition was also filed on behalf of non-claimant No. 2-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in which it was admitted that the vehicle was insured with their company. It was further stated that the motor-cycle was being driven rashly and negligently and due to that the accident took place. Besides this, the driver of the motor cycle was not having effective and valid licence to drive the vehicle, as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the appellant. Therefore, if any situation arises for compensation, then the owner of the vehicle would be responsible. Thus, the claimant-appellant was not entitled to get any compensation from the Insurance Company and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. During trial, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following necessary issues were framed:- " 1- vk;k fnukad 22-07-2002 dks Jh ykMth iq= osyth fuoklh dsoMh;k ds }kjk okgu uEcj Meij vkj ts 03@th@1031 dks xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k Hkqjkyky o ijohu nq?kZVukxzLr gq, ftlls mudks lk/kkj.k o xEHkhj pksVsa vkbZ] o 2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k Dyse esa crkbZ xbZ jkf'k ;k vU; dksbZ jkf'k foi{khx.k ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka rks fdruh o fdl&fdl ls\ 3- vk;k izkFkhZx.k tokc esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj mDr Dyse dh jkf'k vnk;xh gsrq mRrjnk;h ugha gS\ 4- vuqrks"kA " 5. As both the claim petitions were related to one single accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal jointly tried both the claim petitions and decided the same by common judgment and Award. 6. During the trial of the case, from the claimant's side AW-1 Bhura Ram. AW-2 Nagendra and AW-3 Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar were examined and documents Ex. 1 to 31 were got exhibited, which includes the police investigation papers, injury report, disability certificate and insurance cover-note etc. From the side of non-claimants no evidence was produced. 7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said Dumper by Ladji whereby the driver of the motor cycle and the pillion rider sustained grievous and simple injuries on their persons. The learned Tribunal determined and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs. 7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said Dumper by Ladji whereby the driver of the motor cycle and the pillion rider sustained grievous and simple injuries on their persons. The learned Tribunal determined and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs. 90,000/- to the appellant Parveen S/o. Bhura Ram in MACT Case No. 21/2003 and Rs. 40,000/- to Bhura Ram (driver of the motor cycle and father of Praveen) in MACT Case No. 20/2003 along with interest @ 6% p.a. in both the cases from the date of filing of the applications. 8. The claimant-appellant, being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and Award dated 05.04.2006 in respect of Praveen in claim Petition No. 21/2003, filed this appeal through his father for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal and carefully gone through the material available on record. 10. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that learned Tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record and has given erroneous judgment. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation and a meager amount of compensation has been awarded, therefore, it requires re-consideration. It was prayed that reasonable and just compensation be awarded. 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant has suffered several injuries on his person out of which one is grievous on his leg and due to that, his one leg became shortened and he cannot walk freely, play and work smoothly as usual. On the basis of injury reports and physical examination, a certificate of permanent disability has been issued which was produced before the learned Tribunal but the same was not considered in right perspective. It was further submitted that the appellant at the time of accident was only 8-10 years old and was studying in sixth class and due to injuries, his work efficiency has been disturbed and that will carry throughout his life. It was also urged that under different heads, without considering the material available on record, proper compensation has not been determined. It was also urged that under different heads, without considering the material available on record, proper compensation has not been determined. On these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal may be allowed and compensation may be enhanced. 12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention raised by the appellant's side and supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal. It was contended that adequate compensation has been awarded and there is no further scope of enhancement. 13. I have considered the rival submissions placed by both the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the findings and conclusion drawn thereon by the learned Tribunal. 14. The main point which emerges for consideration is that whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not justified and reasonable and it further requires modification by way of enhancement? 15. So far as the occurrence of accident is concerned, I have seen the finding of learned Tribunal and that is based on the statement of eyewitnesses AW/1 Bhura Ram and AW/2 Nagendra. Further, the learned Tribunal has also dealt with the police investigation papers in which after a thorough investigation, challan paper has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, on the basis of material placed before the Tribunal, Issue No. 2 has rightly been decided that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is liable to be maintained. 16. So far as the liability for compensation is concerned, at the time of occurrence, the driver was in employment of the owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. Therefore, all the three respondents have rightly been made jointly and severally responsible for payment of compensation. Learned Tribunal has further determined the quantum of compensation on the basis of material placed by the claimant. In that respect, permanent disability certificate Ex. Therefore, all the three respondents have rightly been made jointly and severally responsible for payment of compensation. Learned Tribunal has further determined the quantum of compensation on the basis of material placed by the claimant. In that respect, permanent disability certificate Ex. 26 was placed and produced by the claimant's side in which after examination and perusal of the injury report, a team of doctors has certified permanent disability to the injured appellant upto the extent of 15% of his leg and looking to the age of the applicant at the time of accident i.e. about 8-10 years and further that he was a student and being a son of a teacher, it is most expected that his future would have been bright in studies and sports. But due to said injuries, he will face permanent disability inn free walking, free working and sports also, particularly when the said disability is related to leg as due to injury, his one leg has been shortened by one and half inch and he has become physically unfit for so many opportunities. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for Rs. 70,000/- is not considered just and reasonable and it requires enhancement. 17. Looking to the material available on record and the permanent disability sustained to the appellant, in my opinion, enhancement of Rs. 20,000/- will serve the purpose. Therefore, the amount awarded under the head of permanent disability of Rs. 70,000/- is enhanced by Rs. 20,000/- which comes to Rs. 90,000/. 18. Learned Tribunal has further awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- under other heads like medicine etc. In those heads, I do not think that there is any scope for enhancement. 19. Learned Tribunal has awarded 6% rate of interest per annum on the total amount of compensation but no reason has been assigned for awarding lesser rate of interest. Therefore I deem it proper to award 7.5% per annum interest instead of 6% per annum on the total amount of compensation including the enhanced amount from the date of application i.e. 26.05.2003 till its realisation. 20. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that compensation amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the head of permanent disability is enhanced to Rs. 90,000/- plus maintaining Rs. 20. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that compensation amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the head of permanent disability is enhanced to Rs. 90,000/- plus maintaining Rs. 20,000/- compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, which comes to Rs. 1,10,000/- in total with modified interest rate of 7.5% per annum on the said award amount for which the respondent are held responsible jointly and severally. Except for the aforesaid modification, the rest of judgment and award is maintained. It is further made clear that if any amount has been paid or deposited by the Insurance company, that will be adjusted towards the due amount and interest will be charged accordingly. It is further directed that as the vehicle was found insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, respondent Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the due amount including the enhanced compensation amount within two months from the date of order, failing which the appellant will be free to initiate recovery proceedings against the respondents.Appeal partly allowed. *******