JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called; "the Act") against the Judgment cum award dated 3.12.2005 passed by the M.A.C.T., Nagaur in Claim Case no. 40/2004. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.02.2004 the appellant claimant aged 8 years, got down from a bus at Butati Bus Stand with her parents and while crossing the road was hit by a car bearing registration No. RJ 20 C 3011 being driven by the Respondent No.1 Kailash Singh. As a result of the said accident, the appellant claimant received severe injuries. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed on behalf of the appellant against the owner, the driver and the Insurance Company of the car, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 8,52,500/-. The Learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:- (i) vk;k fnukad 08-02-2004 dks fnu esa djhcu 1-15 cts lhrkjke o mldh iRuh Hkaojh o mldh iq=h vkjrh] cwVkVh] cl LVS.M ij cl ls mrj dj jksM+ ikj dj ds vius ?kj dh rjQ tkrs le; ml le; jksM+ ij rst ,oe~ xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykrh gqbZ ,d dkj uEcj vkjts 20 lh0 3011 ds dkj&pkyd us lhrkjke dh iq=h vkjrh ds Vddj ekj nh] ftlls vkjrh dk cka;k iSj xaHkhj :i ls {kfrxzLr gks x;k vkSj vkjrh ds flj o vU; txgksa ij pksVsa vk;hA ftlls cka;k ikao lnk ds fy, dke djus yk;d ugha jgk\ ftEes izkFkhZA (ii) ;g fd izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZx.k ls la;qDr :i ls vFkok vyx&vyx :i ls bl Dyse dh reke jkf'k izkIr djus dh fof/kor :i ls vf/kdkjh gS\ ftEes izkFkhZA (iii) vk;k izkFkhZ;k dh ykijokgh ls ;g nq?kZVuk ?kVh\ ftEes vizkFkhZ la0 1 o 2 (iv) vk;k tokcnkok esa fn;s x;s fo'ks"k mtjktkr ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZx.k izkFkhZ dks Dyse dh vnk;xh gsrq mRrjnk;h ugha gS\ vizkFkhZ la0 3 3. The Learned Tribunal, whilst deciding the Issues nos. (i) and (iii) held that the accident occurred due to equal contributory negligence of both the claimant as well as the respondent No.1. As regards the Issue No. (ii) the Learned Tribunal held the claimant entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation, out which Rs. 7,500/- was ordered to be deducted owing to 50% contributory negligence of the claimant herself in the accident. As regards the Issue No. (ii) the Learned Tribunal held the claimant entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation, out which Rs. 7,500/- was ordered to be deducted owing to 50% contributory negligence of the claimant herself in the accident. The learned Tribunal whilst deciding the issue no. (iv) held the respondent No. 3 the Insurance Company responsible to satisfy the claim. 4. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led before it, worked out the following calculations and figures for evaluating the compensation to be awardable to the claimant. Compensation claimed Rs. 8,52,500/- Age of the Claimant at the time of the accident 8 Years Compensation towards 2 Simple Injuries Rs. 2,000/- Compensation towards 1 Grievous Injury Rs. 5,000/- Expenditure for hospitalization @ Rs. 300/- per day Rs. 3,900/- Medical Expenditure Rs. 1,904.96/- Suffering due to Pain and mental agony Rs. 2,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs. 14,804.96/- Rounded Off Rs. 15,000/- Less, 50% as Contributory Negligence Rs. 7,500/- Total Compensation Rs. 7,500/- 5. The learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 8% on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. 6. This appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement in the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously challenge the finding of the tribunal regarding the issue of contributory negligence. He has limited his argument to the question of quantum only. 7. The learned counsel submitted that the following mandatory criterion were not considered properly by the learned Tribunal whilst calculating the compensation awardable to the claimant:- 1. The sum of Rs. 2,000/- awarded for Suffering due to Pain and Mental Agony which the claimant underwent as she was admitted in the hospital for around 11 days is grossly inappropriate. 2. No amount was awarded by the Learned tribunal under the head of Loss of Future Earning Capacity. 3. That the disability certificate of the appellant certifying 35% physical impairment in her leg was wrongly discarded by the tribunal and no amount was awarded under this head. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellant received 35% physical impairment in her left thigh due to the injury received by her in the accident. The certificate Ex.12 produced on behalf of the appellant was discarded by the learned trial court without any justification. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellant received 35% physical impairment in her left thigh due to the injury received by her in the accident. The certificate Ex.12 produced on behalf of the appellant was discarded by the learned trial court without any justification. Learned counsel submits that the certificate issued by the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Nagaur clearly reads that the child was suffering from post traumatic weakness of left thigh and thus the physical impairment of left thigh is 35%. He urges that the certificate is signed by a public servant i.e. Medical Officer of the Government Hospital and as such admissible in evidence without examining the Medical Officer and was wrongly discarded by the Tribunal. 8. Learned Counsel for the claimant also submitted that the nature of the injuries and the physical impairment caused to the claimant was such that it would cause her discomfort in doing all her routine work in the future and would also hinder the chances of her getting married and the best years of her life which were yet to come have been virtually destroyed. 9. He thus prays that the amount deserves to be enhanced appropriately. 10. Mr. Sunil Vyas, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 has opposed the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, and submitted that the award passed by the Learned Tribunal is just and proper. 11. Heard Mr. Yuvraj Sonel, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sunil Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Perused the impugned award and material available on the record. 12. Prima Facie this Court is of the view that the Learned Tribunal has erred by not admitting Exhibit 12, the physical impairment certificate of the claimant as valid evidence on the ground that the same was not proved by the concerned doctor. As per Section 77 of the Evidence Act, a document or certificate issued by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty is admissible without any formal proof, otherwise also, while deciding a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, the strict rules of evidence do not apply. 13. As per Section 77 of the Evidence Act, a document or certificate issued by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty is admissible without any formal proof, otherwise also, while deciding a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, the strict rules of evidence do not apply. 13. As the appellant suffered 35% physical impairment, compensation for the Loss of Future Earning Capacity accruing to the appellant has to be granted in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq v. Div. Manager, United India Insurance Company reported in 2014 (1) SCALE 377 : (AIR 2004 SC 1052) . 14. It is however important to note that as the age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 8 years, pecuniary damages can be determined with certainty as no source of income of the claimant was proved. 15. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- deserves to be awarded to the claimant as, both pecuniary and non pecuniary damages, as compensation towards loss of future earning capability, suffering due to pain and mental agony and the 35% physical impairment. 16. It is evident that the learned Tribunal has erred on the following issues whilst computing the compensation awardable to the claimant appellant. (1) No consideration for loss of future earning capacity. (2) Amount of Rs. 2000/- awarded to the appellant for suffering due to pain and mental agony is highly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. 17. In view of what has been discussed above and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident viz. 8 years, the following assessment and computation deserves to be made for deciding the quantum of compensation awardable to the appellant:- Total Compensation for Pecuniary and non pecuniary damages, suffering due to pain and mental agony, loss of future earning capability and for 35% physical impairment Rs. 1,90,000/- Rs. 1,90,000/- Compensation for 2 Simple Injuries as awarded by the tribunal Rs. 2000/- Rs. 1,92,000/- Compensation towards one Grievous Injury as awarded by the tribunal Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 1,97,000/- Expenditure for hospitalization @ Rs. 300/- per day as awarded by the tribunal Rs. 3,900/- Rs. 2,00,900/- Medical Expenditure as awarded by the tribunal Rs. 1,905/- Rs. 2,02,805/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 2,02,805/- Less 50% for the contributory negligence of the claimant in the accident Rs. 1,01,403/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 1,97,000/- Expenditure for hospitalization @ Rs. 300/- per day as awarded by the tribunal Rs. 3,900/- Rs. 2,00,900/- Medical Expenditure as awarded by the tribunal Rs. 1,905/- Rs. 2,02,805/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 2,02,805/- Less 50% for the contributory negligence of the claimant in the accident Rs. 1,01,403/- Rs. 1,01,403/- Total Compensation Payable Rs. 1,01,403/- ROUNDED OFF Rs. 1,01,000/- 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Nagaur is modified and the appellant is held entitled to the award as indicated above. She shall also be entitled to an interest at the rate of 7.5% on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim. 19. In order to ascertain that the claimant is benefited to the maximum by the enhancement in the award. The following directions are given for the disbursal of the awarded amount:- (1) 20% of the enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimant in cash. (2) The remaining 80% shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalised bank with a lock in period of 5 years by applying the best available fixed deposit term plan. The interest upon the fixed deposit shall be disbursed to the claimant periodically. The banker shall be instructed not to issue any loan against the fixed deposits. (3) If in any emergent condition the claimant require the modification of the said direction, they shall be at liberty to file a writ petition before this Court for the release of the amount from the fixed deposit/s. 20. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******