ORDER : G.D. Saxena, J. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred by the claimant/appellant against an Award dated 7th August 2004 in a Claim Case No. 43/2002 by the First Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Morena (M.P.), seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. The facts, in short, relevant for decision of this appeal are that on 2nd April 2002 at about 3-30 p.m., injured Miss Puja, aged 4 years alongwith her grandfather was standing on the road side. At that time, suddenly a Mini Bus bearing No. MP07/F 806, owned by the M.P. State Transport Corporation and driven by respondent No. 4 came and hit the child. A wheel of the bus run over the legs of injured causing severe injuries to her body. An F.I.R. was lodged against the accused-driver of the bus on which a crime for offence under sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. The injured got treatment in various specialized hospitals under supervision of eminent Surgeons and Physicians. Huge money was spent on her treatment. Lastly, her right leg was amputated. A claim petition seeking an award of Rs. 5,20,000/- was filed. However, the learned tribunal after considering the entire evidence passed an award of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till full and final realisation of the amount. 2. The submissions on behalf of the claimant/appellant are that the learned tribunal without considering the evidence on record and without considering the law in this regard passed the award which is on lower side. It is submitted that the tribunal did not appreciate the evidence properly while awarding compensation and overlooked the factual position that the appellant has become paraplegic on account of injuries received in an accident throughout of her life and her bright future is totally diminished. Virtually, she has suffered a painful life after such an accident. It is submitted that the claimant even after completion of treatment and amputation of leg has become totally dependent on the calipers. The accident was proved to be direct result of rash and negligent driving of the employed driver of the State Transport Corporation. Virtually, she has suffered a painful life after such an accident. It is submitted that the claimant even after completion of treatment and amputation of leg has become totally dependent on the calipers. The accident was proved to be direct result of rash and negligent driving of the employed driver of the State Transport Corporation. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the amount of award as passed by the tribunal may be enhanced up to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest as awarded by the learned tribunal including the cost of the present appeal. 3. The respondents have not filed any cross-objection assailing the impugned Award but simply denied the averments of the petition as well as the accident on the part of their employed driver with a prayer to set aside the Award. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and the relevant law. 5. Before proceeding to determine as to what should be just amount of compensation in the light of the nature of injuries received by the appellant, this court may deal with one of the questions raised, namely, whether it will be permissible to make an award in excess of the amount as claimed in the petition. 6. When one is considering the case of a gravely injured child who is going to live for many years into adult life, very different considerations apply. There are compelling social reasons why a sum of money should be awarded for his future loss of earnings. The money will be required to care for him. Take the present case. It is not a case where damages have been awarded which will provide a sufficient sum for her and be cared for at all times. Damages awarded for her future loss of earnings will in the future be available to provide a home for her and to feed her and provide for such extra comforts as she can appreciate. It cannot be assumed that her parents will remain able to house, feed and care for her throughout the rest of her life. Damages awarded for her future loss of earnings will in the future be available to provide a home for her and to feed her and provide for such extra comforts as she can appreciate. It cannot be assumed that her parents will remain able to house, feed and care for her throughout the rest of her life. If, of course, damages have been awarded on the basis of the full cost of residential care so that they include the cost of roof and board, any award for future loss of earnings will be small because there will be a very large overlap between the two heads of damage. 7. In Subulaxmi Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and Another (2012) 10 SCC 177 , at page 181 : the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows:- ...this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it has been laid down thus: (SCC p. 762, para 15) 15. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earning and the victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score is not sustainable. 6. Be it noted, the High Court has granted Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities. In this context, we may profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein this Court after referring to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. 10,000 for loss of amenities. In this context, we may profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein this Court after referring to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar has laid down as under: (Govind Yadav case, SCC p. 693, para 18) 18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state whether in the said case, the compensation awarded to the claimant victim was just and reasonable or was he entitled to enhanced compensation under certain heads, namely: (Govind Yadav case, SCC p. 693, para 19) (i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg; (ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability; (iii) Future medical expenses; (iv) Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg; (v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage; and (vi) Loss of expectation of life. 8. Now, looking to the statements of the claimants, it clearly indicates that on 2nd April 2002 at about 3-30 p.m., at Porsa Gormi State Road in village Nand Ka Pura under jurisdiction of P.S., Porsa, due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 4 of Bus No. MP07/F 806 of the State Road Transport Corporation, the girl child aged 4 years who was present with her grandfather on the road side was made subject to the accident causing serious injuries to her person. The injuries were serious in nature. The injuries were serious in nature. The crime under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. was registered against the driver of bus involved in accident. The injuries were primarily cured in local hospitals. Since her father was in army, so thereafter her treatment was done in a Military Hospitals having specialist, physicians and surgeons. It is also proved that during treatment for crush injury, ultimately for saving her life, her right leg below knee was amputated. 9. In the light of the above evidence and keeping in view the principles as laid down by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Subulaxmi (supra) in the opinion of this court, the learned tribunal took a totally erroneous view of the matter and also failed to apply the correct principles in making assessment of the amount of compensation, which ought to have been applied in the instant case. The amount awarded is not the just amount of compensation. So, in view of above, the compensation for injuries is assessed as follows:- 10. Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lac only) instead of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition. The entire amount shall be deposited within a period of three months from the date of this order. The disbursement of total award will be subject to the terms of the award passed by the learned tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in the manner aforesaid.