JUDGMENT N. Ananda, J. 1. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has satisfied the impugned award. The findings of the Tribunal on the issues of negligence and liability have attained finality. The only question that arises for consideration is: "Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?" 2. I have heard Sri Gururaja Shetty, learned Counsel for the claimant and Sri Rangegowda, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. As a result of the accident, the claimant has suffered the following injuries: "1. Crush injury measuring 15 cms. x 10 cms. on the right thigh. 2. Supracondylar fracture of the right femur. 3. Comminuted fracture on right patella." 4. The claimant (a minor girl aged about 8 years) was treated in Kasturba Hospital at Manipal. She had undergone wound debridement and operation for reduction of fracture of femur. Even after completion of treatment, she suffers from following disabilities: "1. Right lower limb shortened by 4 cms. 2. Right knee joint is fused. 3. Movements are absent. 4. Scarring of skin with loss of sensation over the anterior aspect of right knee and lower thigh. 5. Unable to sit with cross legs, squat and run. 6. Cannot bear weight. 7. Difficulty in climbing stairs." 5. The Medical Officer has assessed the permanent disability of the right lower limb at 53% and of the whole body at 25%. I have seen the photograph of claimant. Her right lower limb is in a deformed state. The right knee joint is fused and there is loss of movements of right knee joint, she cannot stand on her right lower limb. 6. In a decision in the case of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2013 ACJ 2445 (SC), the Supreme Court has held: "8. It is unfortunate that both the Tribunal and the High Court have not properly appreciated the medical evidence available in the case. The age of the child and deformities on his body resulting in disability have not been duly taken note of. It is unfortunate that both the Tribunal and the High Court have not properly appreciated the medical evidence available in the case. The age of the child and deformities on his body resulting in disability have not been duly taken note of. As held by this Court in R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and Others, AIR 1995 SC 755 : 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), while assessing non-pecuniary damages, the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely to be suffered, any future damages for the loss of amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation in active sports, etc., damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc. have to be addressed especially in the case of a child victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come. While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for reasons more than one. The main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For children there is no income. The only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the national income as Rs. 15,000/- per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. Appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In other words, apart from this head, there shall only be the claim for the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation, etc." 9. Sapna vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, AIR 2008 SC 2281 , is the case of a 12 years old girl who suffered 90% disability in her left leg. This Court granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on these heads. 10. Sapna vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, AIR 2008 SC 2281 , is the case of a 12 years old girl who suffered 90% disability in her left leg. This Court granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on these heads. 10. In Kumar Iranna vs. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla and Another, 2004 (7) Kar. L.J. 143 (DB), a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court granted an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on these heads to the child who suffered 80% permanent disability. 11. In Kum. Michael vs. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another, this Court considered the case of an eight years old child suffering a fracture on both legs with total disability only to the tune of 16%. It was held that the child should be entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- on these counts. 12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure towards treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10 per cent and upto 30 per cent to the whole body, Rs. 3,00,000/-; upto 60 per cent, Rs. 4,00,000/-; upto 90 per cent, Rs. 5,00,000/- and above 90 per cent, it should be Rs. 6,00,000. For permanent disability upto 10 per cent, it should be Rs. 1,00,000, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yard stick." 7. In the case on hand, the permanent physical disability of right lower limb has direct bearing on the marital prospects of the claimant. The claimant is aged about 8 years, she has been deprived of pleasure of childhood. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has held that if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- has to be awarded towards non-pecuniary damages. 8. In the case on hand, having regard to the nature of injuries of the claimant and the effect of disability on her life, I determine the permanent physical disability at 25%. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 2,15,000/- under the non-pecuniary head. 3,00,000/- has to be awarded towards non-pecuniary damages. 8. In the case on hand, having regard to the nature of injuries of the claimant and the effect of disability on her life, I determine the permanent physical disability at 25%. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 2,15,000/- under the non-pecuniary head. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows: In the result, I pass the following: ORDER "The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned award is modified. Compensation of Rs. 2,48,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,50,000/-. The rest of the impugned award as it relates to rate of interest, period of accrual of interest, ratio of apportionment, payment and investment, is confirmed. The compensation enhanced in terms of this award and the accrued interest shall be invested in the name of claimant in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank till she attains the age of majority. The claimant's mother and her natural guardian shall be authorized to draw the periodical interest." Appeal Partly Allowed.