Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 23.11.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.2200 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.69,200/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal and enhance the award amount. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 20.06.1997, at about 4.30 p.m. the minor petitioner Devi was standing at the bus stop, near Marutheeswarar Temple, Thiruvanmiyur at the eastern side edge of the Muttukadu road, when the first respondents car bearing registration No.TDZ 3116 driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor petitioner, resulting that she sustained grievious injuries. Immediately, she was rushed to RM Hospital for preliminary treatment and for further treatment she was taken to Puthur Bone Setting Hospital. She sustained fracture of left femur and other multiple injuries. At the time of accident she was 9 years old and was a student of second standard. 4. Regarding the said accident, the Traffic Investigation Police, Adyar, registered a case in Crime No.3601/1997. 5. The said car belonging to the first respondent and the same was insured with the second respondent/the United India Insurance Co., Ltd., As such, both respondents are jointly and severally are liable to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, which was claimed by the petitioner in the said claim petition. 6. The second respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition stating that the accident happened on 20.06.1997 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver Govindaraj of the car. Whereas, the said vehicle driver was not impleaded as a necessary party in the said claim petition. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary part in this claim petition, the same being alleged by the respondent. The petitoiner has not furnished insurance particulars of the vehicle. Whereas, the said vehicle driver was not impleaded as a necessary party in the said claim petition. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary part in this claim petition, the same being alleged by the respondent. The petitoiner has not furnished insurance particulars of the vehicle. As such, the respondent is not at all liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The first respondent has not furnished any appropriate intimation about the accident to proceed further. Therefore, it is evident that the first respondent with ulterior motive has colluded with the petitioner and thereby remained as exparte. Further, the second respondent denies the aged, the period of treatment and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the alleged accident. The claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is excessive. Hence, the second respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for the consideration namely: (i) Who is responsible for the said accident? (ii) Are the respondents liable to pay compensation? (iii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? (iv)What is other relief? 8. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and nine documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P9 namely Ex.P1-RM Hospital Medical Record, EX.P2-Bone fracture particulars, Ex.P3-Medicine Bill series, Ex.P4-copy of FIR; Ex.P5-Rough Sketch; Ex.P6-copy of Charge Sheet; Ex.P7-Xray (series); Ex.P8-Disability Certificate and Ex.P9-Xray. On the side of the second petitioner no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 9. The guardian of the injured minor petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1 adduced evidence that on 20.06.1997, at about 4.30 p.m. on the Muttukadu road, near Marutheeswarar Temple, her daughter was waiting for a bus, at that time a car bearing registration No.TDZ 3116 coming at a high speed and dashed against her minor daughter. To prove the said accident, she has marked Ex.P4-FIR, Ex.P5-Rough Sketch and P6-Charge Sheet. Considering the oral evidence of the PW1 and the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. The said car belongs to the first respondent and the same was insured with the second respondent. As such, the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 10. The said car belongs to the first respondent and the same was insured with the second respondent. As such, the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 10. The PW1 had further adduced evidence that her minor daughters left leg thigh bone was broken and also sustained head and body injuries. Immediately, she was rushed to RM Hospital for preliminary treatment. For further treatment she was taken to the Puthur Bone Setting Centre. At the time of accident, the minor was studying in Class-III. Due to the said accident she is unable to attend the school for a period of six months. She has also marked medical records Exs.P1, P2, P3 and P7. 11. One Dr.Saichandran was examined as PW2. In his evidence, he adduced that the injured minor girls left thigh bone had fractured and became bent. The muscle of the leg has become constricted. Her leg movement has been reduced 20%. The Doctor assessed disability of the injured girl as 35%, the Disability Certificate marked as Ex.P8 and the Xray was marked as Ex.P9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,000/-as compensation under the head of transport and nutrition against each; Rs.15,000/-for pain and suffering; Rs.35,000/- for permanent disability; Rs.15,000/- for loss of earning power and Rs.2,200/- for medical expenses. In total, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.69,200/- to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal further directed the second respondent to deposit the compensation amount in the Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of its Order. In turn, the said amount to be deposited in anyone of the nationalised bank till the injured minor girl attains major. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the interest thereon once in six months. The Advocate fee fixed at Rs.3,000/-. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the minor injured girl had sustained 35% disability. But the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-, which is on the lower side. Further, under the heads of medical and transport expenses are on the lower side. 13. The Advocate fee fixed at Rs.3,000/-. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the minor injured girl had sustained 35% disability. But the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/-, which is on the lower side. Further, under the heads of medical and transport expenses are on the lower side. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal and the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the award under the heads of nutrition, transport and disability are all on the lower side. Hence, this Court enhances the compensation under the head of permanent disability from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. For nutrition, this Court enhances the award amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. For transport expenses, this Court enhances the award amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,08,200/-. Already, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.69,200/- after deducting the same, this Court grants a sum of Rs.39,000/-as additional compensation amount to the appellant/claimant as it is found to be fair and equitable. The additional compensation amount will carry at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 14. Therefore, this Court directs the second respondent/United India Insurance Co., Ltd., to deposit the additional compensation amount of Rs.39,000/-with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2200 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 15. As the accident happened in the year 1997, it is open to the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the additional compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.2200 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 16. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 23.11.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.2200 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.VI, Chennai, is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.