Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the injured Ram Babu, who was a child aged six years at the time of accident in 2001. 2. Shri J.R. Tantia, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal has created contradictory evidence while deciding issue No.1. It has held that the accident did not take place with vehicle No.RJ 26-2M 0784 whereas in the judgment, non claimant No.1 Raja Ram was described to be the driver of that very vehicle. In finding on issue No.2, the Tribunal has stated that the vehicle that was being driven by non-claimant No.1 Raja Ram was involved in the accident. 3. Smt. Manju Jain, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and submitted that some other vehicle was involved in the accident and that the informant who lodged the first information report also could not describe the vehicle or its number and that the vehicle number 0784 has been wrongly alleged to have been involved. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Indra Devi & Ors. vs. Bagada Ram & Anr.-2010 (4) TAC 24 (SC) = 2010(2) CCR 873 (SC). 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that the disability of the appellant was assessed to only 4.25%. He was a child aged six years. This Court while entertaining the appeal, stayed that part of the award by which an amount of Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be recovered from the insurance company on acount of no fault liability. The Supreme Court in Indra Devi & Ors. vs. Bagada Ram & Anr.-2010 (4) TAC 24 (SC) = 2010(2) CCR 873 (SC) has held that such compensation is made regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of person in respect of whose death claim is made. The Tribunal therefore was patently in error in refund of the said amount. Even otherwise, at the maximum a sum of Rs.10,000 could be awarded as compensation for the kind of injury and for mental agony. This amount would apportioned to the same amount, which has been paid to the claimant on account of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.