JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the father-the natural guardian of minor injured-claimant Kum. Priyanka Sharma @ Ranu against the judgment and Award dated 20.12.1996 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali (in short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.61/92 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,000/- only in favour of the claimant plus interest @ 12% from the date of filing of claim petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 13.10.1991 at about 6 O clock in the morning while the claimant's father alongwith his family members including the claimant-Priyanka aged 8 years were going from Jaipur to Ambaji for 'darshan' in a mini bus No. RJ-14P-1129 on the way due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Rajendra @ Bablu (respondent No.1), the bus got turtled whilst taking turn in between Sanderao and Sumerpur, as a result of which all the passengers sitting inside the bus including the present claimant-Kum. Priyanka sustained injuries. A report of the said accident was lodged at P.S. Sumerpur and the police after investigation filed challan against the bus driver-Rajendra @ Bablu for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. The bus was stated to be insured with National Insurance Co. (respondent No.2). A total sum of Rs.3,25,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads. As many as 13 claim petitions (including the present one) were filed before the learned Tribunal, which all were decided vide common judgment and award dated 20.12.1996. 3. After issuance of notice, the respondents contested the claim petition and filed their replies. 4. The non-claimants driver and owners of the minibus denied the averments made in the claim petition for want of knowledge. It was stated in the reply that there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the bus driver. The accident took place by chance and for that the driver cannot be held liable. As a matter of fact, the bus driver in order to avoid accident from a vehicle coming from opposite direction at a high speed, turned the bus towards the extreme 'kachha' side of the road but because of uneven earth surface, the driver lost control over his bus and turtled and the accident happened. As a matter of fact, the bus driver in order to avoid accident from a vehicle coming from opposite direction at a high speed, turned the bus towards the extreme 'kachha' side of the road but because of uneven earth surface, the driver lost control over his bus and turtled and the accident happened. Further the amounts claimed as compensation were stated to be entirely baseless and if any responsibility arises for payment of compensation, then it was for the Insurance Co. to indemnify the claim as the bus at the relevant time was insured with respondent No.2. 5. A reply to the claim petition was also filed by non-applicant No.2 (insurer of mini-bus) mostly the averments made in the petition were denied for want of knowledge. The Insurance Co. further denied his liability to pay compensation as no information of the accident was given by the owner of the vehicle though that was necessary to submit. 6. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed two issues, which are as follows : " 1- D;k fnukad 13-10-1991 dks izkr% 6-00 cts lk.Msjko o lqesjiqj ds e/; vizkFkhZ jktsUnz us cl la[;k vkj0ts0 14@ih 1129 dks rst xfr] ykijokgh o vlko/kkuh iwoZ pykrs gq;s nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh] ftlds QyLo:i ml cl esa ;k=k dj jgs izkFkhZx.k o vU; dks xEHkhj pksVsa vkbZ\ 2- D;k lHkh izkFkhZx.k mDr nq?kZVuk esa yxh pksVksa ds QyLo:i izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr fooj.k ds vuqlkj gtkZuk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vuqrks"kA " 7. On behalf of claimant, Kum. Priyanka appeared as a witness. Her statement was recorded and a number of documents were produced and got exhibited from her side whereas from the other side, no evidence was led. 8. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, decided the present claim alongwith 13 claim others (arising out of the same accident) and held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver and turned down the other objections taken by the non-applicants and after considering the age and injury sustained in the accident to Kum. Priyanka, vide its judgment and Award dated 20.12.1996 awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,000/- only plus interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and held the non-applicants jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation. 9. Priyanka, vide its judgment and Award dated 20.12.1996 awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,000/- only plus interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and held the non-applicants jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation. 9. The claimant being felt aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded has preferred this appeal through her father-natural guardian challenging the findings with regard to determination of compensation and prayed for enhancing the same. The notices of appeal was given to the respondents. Record of the case was called and the parties were heard. 10. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has given an erroneous finding with regard to the quantum of compensation, therefore, the judgment and award is required to be modified. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that due to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, Priyanka remained as an indoor patient at Mahaveer Hospital, Sumerpur and further she also remained under treatment at Jaipur. It was urged that the entire record regarding x-ray, discharge ticket, bed-head ticket, prescription slips and medicine bills were also produced before the learned Tribunal but the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documents and has awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.5000/-. It was further contended that due to the injuries sustained to the claimant, the Government doctor certified her disability upto 16% and have issued a certificate in that respect (Exh.15) but the learned Tribunal has ignored and has not considered such an important document on the ground that it has been issued after 2 -2 = month of the incident. It was urged that the ground of rejecting the disability certificate is not sustainable in the eye of law. It was submitted that such type of certificate after full efforts have been made by the doctors of making the treating patient and then only when the doctor comes to a conclusion of permanent disability, on which certificate are issued, therefore, this exhibit ought to have been considered and on that basis proper compensation should have been awarded. Due to the injuries caused in the accident and considering her age, she has suffered loss of continuing education and also suffered mental shock to attend social functions but the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5000/- for the pain and agony. Due to the injuries caused in the accident and considering her age, she has suffered loss of continuing education and also suffered mental shock to attend social functions but the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5000/- for the pain and agony. On the basis of these submissions, it was urged that adequate compensation may be redetermined and the appeal may be allowed. 11. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that looking to the nature of injuries, the learned Tribunal has already rightly awarded sufficient amount under that head and now there is no scope for enhancement, as such, the appeal may be dismissed. 12. I have considered the rival contention of the parties and have perused the findings and conclusions given by the learned Tribunal on all issues. Now the question that arises for consideration is 'whether the learned Tribunal on the basis of the bodily injury sustained by the appellant has adequately awarded compensation or not and whether that awarded amount requires to be enhanced ? 13. So far as the finding of the Tribunal with regard to issue No.1 is concerned, I have scene the findings. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence and carelessness on the part of the bus driver. It is pertinent to note that on the report of accident, the police after investigation filed challan against the bus driver and, therefore, to that extent the finding of the Tribunal is required to be maintained. 14. I have considered the main submission placed by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation. In this respect I have gone through the statement of Kum. Priyanka. She has stated that in the accident she sustained injury on her eye, hand and other parts of the body. She has also stated that she remained under treatment at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Sumerpur. The prescription slips, x-ray and medical bills etc., were produced. They were perused. She has also stated that due to the injuries sustained to her the doctor has issued disability certificate (Exh.15), that is on record wherein a Sr. She has also stated that she remained under treatment at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Sumerpur. The prescription slips, x-ray and medical bills etc., were produced. They were perused. She has also stated that due to the injuries sustained to her the doctor has issued disability certificate (Exh.15), that is on record wherein a Sr. Medical Officer, Incharge, Government Hospital, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur while narrating the injuries and impact thereof, has given disability upto 16% with regard to the left upper limb. It is revealed from the statement of Kum. Priyanka that at the time of accident her age was 8 years and she was studying in Class-IV. She has also stated that due to the these injuries, her studies suffered. The learned Tribunal has awarded without any calculation a lumpsum of Rs.5000/- towards the expenses incurred in treatment and further Rs.5000/- for the pain and agony. Thus, a total of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded as compensation. The learned Tribunal has ignored to consider the disability certificate on the ground that it has been issued after 2- 2 = month but to my mind the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not adequate and it is also not proper to ignore the disability certificate merely on the basis that it has been issued after 2-2 = month of accident, rather it supports the contention of the claimant that despite passage of 2-1/2 months, the disability remained as it was, therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal should have considered this certificate at the time of determination of compensation. Considering the overall material available on the record, I think it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal has compensation. Thus, the appellant will now be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.35,000/- (Rs.10,000 plus Rs.25,000/-). Further the claimant will also be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of compensation. The amount is enhanced by Rs.25,000/-. Thus the total compensation comes out to Rs.35,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) plus interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of compensation. The amount is enhanced by Rs.25,000/-. Thus the total compensation comes out to Rs.35,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) plus interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally held responsible to pay the additional compensation to the appellant as the vehicle is admittedly insured with the respondents. The Insurance Co., is further directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with the learned Tribunal alongwith interest within a period of two months from the date of order, failing which the claimant will be free to recover the same as per the provisions of law. Rest of the judgment and Award is confirmed. No order as to costs.Appeal Partly allowed. *******