Judgment ( 1. ) BY this appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement of the amount awarded by the Second Motor accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), kannod vide award dated 2. 12. 2004 in claim Case No. 40 of 2004. ( 2. ) THE appellant had filed application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act claiming compensation on the ground that while she was going in a tractor-trolley to Godna on 30. 4. 2002 and the tractor-trolley had been parked on the side, a truck bearing registration No. MP 09-D 4840 approached at an alarming speed and collided with the tractor-trolley resulting in severe injuries to her legs and consequent disablement. The appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 but she has been awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 16. 9. 2003. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a student of Class XI and on account of the said accident, she suffered fracture in both legs, of tibia and fibula as also the fracture of knee. Reference has been made to the testimony of AW 3, Dr. Sunil Jakar to the effect that the disablement suffered by her was 66 per cent. It is in this backdrop that the learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that since the appellant was going as a passenger in the trolley of the tractor, the insurance company was under no obligation to pay compensation to her. ( 5. ) AS regards the contention of learned counsel, if we examine the facts of the case in proper perspective, the pleadings show that while the appellant was going in a trolley and the tractor and trolley had come to a halt, even if it is assumed that she was a passenger, it would not relieve the insurance company of the liability insofar as the truck which collided with the tractor-trolley is concerned, the appellant was a third party. We are, therefore, not impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that in the facts and circumstances of the case the insurance company ought to have been exonerated. ( 6. We are, therefore, not impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that in the facts and circumstances of the case the insurance company ought to have been exonerated. ( 6. ) COMING to the claim of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant was a student of Class XI at the time the accident occurred. She sustained severe injuries, viz. , fracture of both legs, tibia and fibula, and fracture of knee on account whereof there is a shortening in the left leg. ( 7. ) THE disablement suffered by the appellant girl has jeopardised the chances of her marriage and even otherwise she will have to live with the disability caused to her, all through her life. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded to the appellant is wholly inadequate. We feel that the appellant should be awarded an additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to make the compensation commensurate to the harm suffered. ( 8. ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is partly allowed, the compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of rs. 1,00,000. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application before the Tribunal. The insurance company, respondent No. 3, shall deposit the amount now awarded within three months. Appeal partly allowed.