Judgment : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award and decree dated 06-10-1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Karimnagar in OP.No. 65 of 1996. 2. Challenge to the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it was grossly inadequate and has not been computed properly. Since the question arises for consideration in this appeal is only as to the quantum of compensation, the other issues need not be adverted to. 3. The facts of the case are that Baby Akinapalli Nikhitha, was aged 4 years on the date of accident. On 13-04-1995 at about 04:00 p.m. in Gollapalli village in Karimnagar district, a lorry bearing No. AP-12-T-1155, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, ran over her due to which she sustained grievous injuries, which include crush injury to the left hand. Ultimately her left hand was amputated below the shoulder level and she became permanently disabled. On her behalf, her next friend and natural father filed a claim-petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000=00. The learned Claims Tribunal after making enquiry passed an award for an amount of Rs.1,20,000=00 under various heads making the respondents 2 and 3, the owner of the offending lorry and the respondent No. 4 Insurance Company with which the said vehicle was insured jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the appellant-claimant. The said award is assailed in this appeal on the ground that the compensation granted is very low, not just and reasonable and requires enhancement. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that ultimately due to the crush injury sustained by the appellant-claimant (injured) in the accident her left hand below the shoulder level was amputated and she continued her studies with the said disability and overcoming all sorts of difficulties now she is prosecuting her B.Tech course. 5. Sri T.Ramulu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant would contend that the compensation granted is very low, the Claims Tribunal without properly appreciating the impact of the injuries on the life of the appellant-claimant awarded meagre amount of compensation and it has to be enhanced in this appeal. 6. 5. Sri T.Ramulu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant would contend that the compensation granted is very low, the Claims Tribunal without properly appreciating the impact of the injuries on the life of the appellant-claimant awarded meagre amount of compensation and it has to be enhanced in this appeal. 6. On the other hand, Sri S.Agastya Sarma, the learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Limited would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal after considering the disability of the appellant-claimant, who was aged four years on the date of accident, rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000=00, the said amount being reasonable needs no interference. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal granted lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000=00 towards general damages i.e., amputation of left hand, pain and suffering, mental agony etc. Basing on the medical bills, the Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.12,528=75 paise for medical expenses. An amount of Rs.2,616-75 paise was awarded for transport to hospital. A sum of Rs.5,000=00 was granted for extra-nourishment. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.1,20,000=00 (Rs.1,00,000=00 + Rs.12,528-75 ps. + Rs.2,616=75 ps + Rs.5,000=00 = 1,20,145-50 paise rounded off to Rs.1,20,000=00) was awarded. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in YADAVA KUMAR V/s. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR (2010) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES-341, and SRI LAXMAN @ LAXMAN MOURYA V/s. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ANR 2011 (12) SCALE-658. In both these judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunals and High Courts have to adopt a liberal approach while granting compensation to the victims who suffered permanent or temporary disability on account of the injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident and to award compensation which is appropriate, just and reasonable. 9. In YADAVA KUMAR V/s. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR., referred supra-1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows : “while assessing compensation in accident cases, the High Court or the Tribunal must take a reasonably compassionate view of things. It cannot be disputed that the appellant being a painter has to earn his livelihood by virtue of physical work. The nature of injuries, amply demonstrate that carrying those injuries he is bound to suffer loss of earning capacity as a painter and a consequential loss of income is the natural outcome. It cannot be disputed that the appellant being a painter has to earn his livelihood by virtue of physical work. The nature of injuries, amply demonstrate that carrying those injuries he is bound to suffer loss of earning capacity as a painter and a consequential loss of income is the natural outcome. The courts are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time, the concept of “just compensation” obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and the courts. Both the courts and the tribunals in the matter of this exercise should be guided by principles of good conscience so that the ultimate result becomes just and equitable. ” “The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damages. The expression compensation may include a claim for damages but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury, which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time, it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation”. [Emphasis supplied] 10. In the instant case, no doubt true that the appellant-claimant, was aged 4 years on the date of accident and notwithstanding the fact that her left hand was amputated below shoulder level she continued her education by overcoming the difficulties. Now she is studying B.Tech course. It is not thus possible to say that she will not get any employment in future but certainly her prospects of employment and marriage have been considerably affected and she suffered great loss on account of amputation of left hand below shoulder level. Though this Court is not inclined to interfere with the compensation granted under various heads; namely, medical expenses, extra-nourishment and transport charges. Though this Court is not inclined to interfere with the compensation granted under various heads; namely, medical expenses, extra-nourishment and transport charges. Certainly the approach adopted by the Claims Tribunal for granting lumpsum of Rs.1,00,000=00 towards general damages i.e., for amputation of left hand, pain and suffering is not appropriate. Further the learned Claims Tribunal did not consider the specific issues; such as the future loss in relation to earning capacity and loss of marriage prospects, pain and suffering etc. This Court is of the considered view that keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra, the appellant-claimant has to be awarded just and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by her and her present position in life and the affect of the disability sustained by her on account of the injuries sustained in the accident has tobe taken into consideration. 11. For the permanent disability sustained by the appellant-claimant, an amount of Rs.1,00,000=00 can be granted. Considering the fact that the appellant cannot compete others having similar qualifications in the matter of employment, an amount of Rs.1,00,000=00 can be granted towards loss of future earning capacity. This apart, a further sum of Rs.1,00,000=00 can be granted towards loss of marriage prospects. An amount of Rs.1,00,000=00 can be granted towards pain and suffering. The amount granted under the other heads since have not been interfered with in this appeal, they have to be added to the above compensation. Thus an amount of Rs.12,528=75 paise towards medical expenses, Rs.2,616=75 paise towards transport charges, Rs,5,000=00 towards extra-nourishment viz., a further sum of Rs.20,000=00 has to be added to the above amount arrived at in the appeal. However, the interest granted @ 12% p.a. being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhancement would be Rs.4,20,000=00 (--) Rs.1,20,000=00 = Rs.3,00,000=00. 12. With the above enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is partly allowed. No costs.