JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment /award dated 7.3.2013 passed by Judge, MACT, and Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Dholpur in Claim Petition No. 09/04 whereby the claim petition has been allowed against the appellants, hence the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that a very higher and unreasonable compensation has been awarded. 2. The contention of the Insurance Company is that for pain and sufferings twice the compensation has been awarded and inspite of the fact that the deceased was a child of only 8 years, his income has been assessed 36,000/- per year and admittedly he has suffered only 60% disability. The compensation has been awarded by computing the disability as 100%. The accident is of 2003, hence minimum wages prevalent at that time should be the guiding principle and in 2003, the value of rupees was much higher than today which fact has not been considered by the court below, hence the award should be suitably reduced.Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that the appeal is not maintainable as no permission has been sought by the Insurance Company as provided under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and court below has considered the rival contentions and a reasonable and fair award has been ordered. The right leg of a child of 8 years has been imputed below the knee for which any sum of compensation cannot compensate his agony and discomfort, hence no interference is needed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 4. As regards contention for Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, both the parties have relied upon United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Dutta & ors., MACD 2011 (SC) 173 where this issue has been referred to a Larger Bench. In view of the matter that the issue has been referred to Larger Bench, it cannot be said that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company as regards the quantum of compensation is not maintainable and this objection of the respondent is not acceptable. 5. It is not in dispute that the injured is 8 years child and he has suffered 60% disability and his right leg has been imputed below the knee. The court below has awarded Rs. 5. It is not in dispute that the injured is 8 years child and he has suffered 60% disability and his right leg has been imputed below the knee. The court below has awarded Rs. 1 lac for pain and suffering and agony and also 1 lac for the fact that he could not lead a normal life and for loss of amenities, further one lacs has been awarded for pain and suffering, hence the counsel for the appellant is right in pointing out that for pain and suffering, twice compensation has been awarded in view of the fact that the respondent has suffered 60% disability and his leg has been imputed, he is entitled for pain and suffering in the tune of Rs. 1 lac. The court below has rightly awarded 1 lac for loss of amenities as the child has suffered disability on account of accident and he is to run whole his life with pain, shock, frustration and deprivation of normal life hence, 3 lac which has been awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is reduced to Rs. 2 lac. 6. As regards income of the claimant, without any hesitation, it can be assumed that as the claimant is child of only 8 years, he has no income and court below has considered his income on minimum wages and reliance has been placed by the respondents on Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., MACD 2012 (SC) 28 by the respondents where it has been held that where there is no evidence of income, minimum wages could be the guiding line. Here in the present case, accident has occurred in 2003 and at that time, prevailing rate of minimum wages for unskilled labour was 60/- per day. Hence the income of the respondent could highest be calculated as 1800/- per month and multiplier of has rightly been applied. 7. Both the counsel for the parties are agreeable to the fact that respondent has suffered 60% disability but the award goes to show that in spite of 60% disability, 100% compensation has been awarded, hence for loss of earning capacity and disability, the respondent is awarded compensation of Rs. 1800x12x18x60% which comes to Rs. 2,33,280/- instead of 6,48,000/- awarded by the court below. 8. The respondent has relied upon Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. 1800x12x18x60% which comes to Rs. 2,33,280/- instead of 6,48,000/- awarded by the court below. 8. The respondent has relied upon Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., MACD 2013 (SC) 300 where the facts were different, right limb was shorten by 1.5 cm. and looking to the facts, the compensation has been awarded. Further reliance has been placed on Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & ors., MACD 2013 (SC) 289 which was the case of accidental death which is not the case here. 9. The appellant has relied upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie & Anr., (2005) 10 SCC 720 where general principles for assessment of compensation has been explained and it has been held that taking the totality of the circumstances and various factors for example, the life expectancy, dependency earning and other probabilities has to be taken care and there is no dispute about this legal proposition but it is not the case of the accidental death. 10. In view of the above, the compensation is suitably reduced and the respondent will get Rs. 2 lac instead of Rs. 3 lacs under pain, shock, frustration and deprivation of normal life and for loss of earning capacity, he will get Rs. 2,33,280/- instead of 6,48,000/-. In total 2,33,280 + 2,00,000/- = 4,33,280/- along with interest as ordered by the court below.With these directions, the appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed. *******