JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.:- This appeal has been filed by the claimant Smt. Manasha Debnath against the award dated 16-05-2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) 671 of 2002 whereby the Tribunal rejected the claim petition and furthermore the claimant is also aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 29-09-2010 whereby the review petition was also dismissed. The claimant filed the claim petition through her parents alleging that on 22-08-2002 when the claimant was 7 years old, she was hit by a Maruti Van bearing No. TR-01-A-0600. According to the claimant, she had suffered grievous injuries during the accident and permanent disablement and, therefore, she claimed compensation. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that a case against the driver of the Van had been registered as case No. 51 of 2002 under sections 279/338 of IPC in Amtali Police Station. The owner of the vehicle did not appear to contest the case and, therefore, the Insurance Company applied for permission to contest the appeal on all grounds. 2. The Insurance Company filed a written statement and in the written statement it is stated that the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company on the date of accident. As far as the occurrence of the accident is concerned, there is no denial by the Insurance Company that the accident took place. The reply runs into 7 pages and consists of 20 paragraphs, but all the averments are in the nature of preliminary averments and there is no specific denial to the averments made in the clam petition. Once the claimant had pleaded that an accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Van; and the owner of the van did not appear before the Tribunal to contest this claim and the Insurance Company in its reply also did not deny the occurrence of the accident, then I fail to understand what further proof was required. Even if such proof was required, on going through the records of the learned trial Court, I find that along with a list of documents (firisti), the claimant on 06-08-2008 had filed a copy of the FIR, a copy of the written complaint, a permanent disablement certificate, discharge certificate, X-ray report, prescriptions, cash memos etc. Even if such proof was required, on going through the records of the learned trial Court, I find that along with a list of documents (firisti), the claimant on 06-08-2008 had filed a copy of the FIR, a copy of the written complaint, a permanent disablement certificate, discharge certificate, X-ray report, prescriptions, cash memos etc. The father of the injured submitted his affidavit by way of evidence and stated that the claimant along with her mother were returning to their house when the Maruti Van bearing No. TR-01-A-0600 coming from Agartala side was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and dashed against the daughter about 200 yards from the Chowmohani Bazar. He clearly states that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. This witness after filing his affidavit stepped into the witness box and stated that he had submitted his examination-in-chief and had also filed the disablement certificate, discharge certificate, prescriptions and vouchers which were exhibited as Exhibit-1, 2, 3 and 4 series respectively. This witness was not cross-examined by the Insurance Company since none appeared for the Insurance Company. 3. This is a case where the occurrence of the accident was not denied in the written statement either by the owner or by the Insurance Company. The allegation of negligence was also not denied either by the owner or by the Insurance Company. I am constrained to observe that the Tribunal acted as if he was the lawyer for the Insurance Company. True it is, that a claimant must prove its case but if a respondent does not deny the facts and does not even cross-examine the witness when he appeared in the witness box, then no further proof is required. 4. The Tribunal was totally unaware about the provisions of law. The Apex Court in Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited, [ (2010) 2 SCC 607 ] has issued certain directions to the Claims Tribunals which read as follows:-- Directions to the Claims Tribunals: 20. 4. The Tribunal was totally unaware about the provisions of law. The Apex Court in Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited, [ (2010) 2 SCC 607 ] has issued certain directions to the Claims Tribunals which read as follows:-- Directions to the Claims Tribunals: 20. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to instruct all Claims Tribunals in his State to register the reports of accidents received under Section 158(6) of the Act as applications for compensation under Section 166(4) of the Act and deal with them without waiting for the filing of claim applications by the injured or by the family of the deceased. The Registrar General shall ensure that necessary registers, forms and other support is extended to the Tribunal to give effect to Section 166(4) of the Act. 21. For complying with Section 166(4) of the Act, the jurisdictional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal shall initiate the following steps: (a) The Tribunal shall maintain an institution register for recording the FIRs which are received from the Station House Officers of the police stations and register them as miscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with reference to an FIR, they should also be recorded in the register. (b) The Tribunal shall list the FIRs as miscellaneous petitions. It shall fix a date for preliminary hearing so as to enable the police to notify such date to the victim (family of the victim in the event of death) and the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once the claimant(s) appear, the miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant(s) file the claim petition even before the receipt of the FIR by the Tribunal, the FIR may be tagged to the claim petition. (c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the FIR relates to a real accident and is not the result of any collusion and fabrication of an accident (by any "police officer-advocate-doctor" nexus, which has come to light in several cases). (d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain the dependent family members/legal heirs. The jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the names of the dependent legal heirs. (e) The Tribunal shall categorise the claim cases registered, into those where the insurer disputes liability and those where the insurer does not dispute the liability. (d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain the dependent family members/legal heirs. The jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the names of the dependent legal heirs. (e) The Tribunal shall categorise the claim cases registered, into those where the insurer disputes liability and those where the insurer does not dispute the liability. (f) Wherever the insurer does not dispute the liability under the policy, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to determine the compensation amount by a summary enquiry or refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for settlement, so as to dispose of the claim petition itself, within a time-frame not exceeding six months from the date of registration of the claim petition. (g) The insurance companies shall be directed to deposit the admitted amount or the amount determined, with the Claims Tribunals within 30 days of determination. The Tribunals should ensure that the compensation amount is kept in a fixed deposit and disbursed as per the directions contained in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas. (h) As the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act are different in nature from an application by the victim(s) under Section 166(1) of the Act, Section 170 will not apply. The insurers will therefore be entitled to assist the Tribunal (either independently or with the owners of the vehicles) to verify the correctness in regard to the accident, injuries, age, income and dependants of the deceased victim and in determining the quantum of compensation. 5. Even when a Claims Tribunal is apprised about a motor accident claims case in terms of Sections 158(6)and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is suo-moto required to take action in the matter. Sections158(6) and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act read as follows:-- 158(6). 5. Even when a Claims Tribunal is apprised about a motor accident claims case in terms of Sections 158(6)and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is suo-moto required to take action in the matter. Sections158(6) and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act read as follows:-- 158(6). As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer. 166(4). The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act. 6. In the present case, the claimants had filed a carbon copy of the FIR. I have perused the original carbon copy and I find that it probably is the copy which has been handed over to the complainant by the police. There was no reason to doubt the authenticity or correctness of this FIR, especially when there was no denial by the respondents. Even assuming for the sake of argument that such document was not per se admissible in evidence, then under sections 158(6) and 166(4), the Tribunal should have performed its duty and found out the details of the FIR even if it had to summon the records from the police station. This was a case where the claimant was a 7 year old minor girl. A more onerous duty is cast upon the Tribunal when it is dealing with cases of minor because a minor should not suffer because of the fault of the guardian or the lawyer or the Court. The Court has to act for the benefit of the minor. Unfortunately, the Tribunal behaved as if this was a highly contested litigation and where the claimant had not proved anything. The claimant had alleged that the FIR had been registered and had also led evidence by way of proving of the FIR. The Court has to act for the benefit of the minor. Unfortunately, the Tribunal behaved as if this was a highly contested litigation and where the claimant had not proved anything. The claimant had alleged that the FIR had been registered and had also led evidence by way of proving of the FIR. The father had appeared in the witness box and made a statement. Neither any written statement was filed nor was the father cross-examined. Despite this, the Tribunal taking a hyper-technical approach dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that certified copy of the FIR had not been filed. 7. The matter does not end here. Realizing that the claim petition had been dismissed only on the ground that the certified copy of the FIR had not been filed, the claimant approached the Tribunal with a review petition praying that it may be permitted to place on record the certified copy of the FIR and thereafter, the award be recalled. The petitioner filed a review petition and in the review petition they stated that they obtained the certified copy of the complaint, FIR and charge-sheet and certified copies were being filed along with the review petition. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal changed and thereafter the new Presiding Officer rejected the claim petition again on the ground that only a photocopy had been filed and the certified copy had not been filed. The new officer also dismissed the review petition. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have carefully gone through the record and for the reasons stated above, I am clearly of the view that the approach of both the Presiding Officer was hyper technical. As held by me above, there was no denial of the accident and carbon copy of the FIR had been placed on record at the first instance. When the claimant's father appeared in the witness box, he was not cross-examined. Even then, if the Presiding Officer had some doubt with regard to the correctness of the FIR, he should have either given an opportunity to the claimant to prove the FIR or should have summoned the record of the FIR from the police station and verified the correctness of the FIR, especially in a case where the claimant was a minor. In this case, I am clearly of the opinion that the accident did take place as stated by the claimant. In this case, I am clearly of the opinion that the accident did take place as stated by the claimant. The driver of the vehicle did not step into the witness box. It is well settled law that no contributory negligence can be ascribed to a child. It is the duty of the driver of the vehicle to ensure that he drives the vehicle in such a manner that children who may even be playing on the road are not injured by his driving. The accident took place in the city and by non-appearance of the owner and driver, an adverse inference should have been drawn against them. Therefore, I am clearly of the view that the accident did take place and that negligence was that of the driver of the Maruti Van. 9. Coming to the quantum of compensation. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in hospital on 22-08-2002 and discharged therefrom on 01-10-2002, i.e. after more than a month. She was diagnosed as having compound fracture of both bones of the left leg. Unfortunately, it appears that this fracture had not totally healed and the claimant was readmitted to the hospital on 20-05-2003 and discharged therefrom on 07-07-2003, i.e. after 1 ½ months and this time the diagnosis was mal-united fracture of both bones of the left leg and surgical implants were inserted into the leg. These surgical implants were removed by an operation done on 12-11-2007 and during this period the claimant remained admitted in hospital from 31-10-2007 till 14-11-2007. The claimant who is a young girl has suffered post traumatic deformity of 15% to the left leg. Therefore, I proceed to now assess the compensation. 10. The claimant remained admitted in hospital for 40 days at the first instance, 48 days at the second instance and 15 days on the third instance. She had spent 103 days in the hospital itself. In the hospital, she would have required attendants round the clock and even if two attendants are required and the cost of one attendant is taken as Rs. 200/- per day at the relevant time, the cost of attendants alone works out to Rs. 41,200/-. In addition thereto, it is apparent that the claimant had not recovered and she would have required attendance at home also. At home, even one attendant would be sufficient and, therefore, attendant charges themselves are assessed at Rs. 200/- per day at the relevant time, the cost of attendants alone works out to Rs. 41,200/-. In addition thereto, it is apparent that the claimant had not recovered and she would have required attendance at home also. At home, even one attendant would be sufficient and, therefore, attendant charges themselves are assessed at Rs. 60,000/-. 11. The claimant has placed on record very scanty evidence with regard to her medical expenses. It appears that they were advised to keep the receipts only after the claim petition was filed because I find there are hardly any receipts prior to the filing of the claim petition. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that surgical implants are very expensive. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries, the level of treatment etc., I on the basis of the documents produced on record assess the expenses on medical treatment at Rs. 20,000/-. 12. The claimant at least for one year could not attend school. She was just a small girl aged 7 years and, therefore, I assess damages for loss of one year of study at Rs. 20,000/-. 13. Coming to the issue of loss of income, the claimant was a student and not earning. Therefore, there is no loss of income. Even with regard to loss of future income, I am not inclined to award any amount because the disability is only 15% to the leg and it is not in relation to the entire body. Therefore, in relation to the entire body, the disability will be about 3 to 4% which a child can overcome over period of time. It cannot be said that because of the disability the claimant cannot earn. 14. Having said so, the claimant has to be granted compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future discomfort of life and loss of marital prospects. As far as pain and suffering is concerned, one can hardly imagine the agony of a small 7 year old girl who had to spend 103 days in hospital and was under constant treatment almost for one year and finally the implants were removed after 5 years. Keeping in view this long period of treatment, the number of operations carried out, I assess the damages for pain and suffering at Rs. 30,000/-. 15. The claimant was a small 7 year old child when she suffered the accident. Keeping in view this long period of treatment, the number of operations carried out, I assess the damages for pain and suffering at Rs. 30,000/-. 15. The claimant was a small 7 year old child when she suffered the accident. She virtually remained bedridden for almost a year. She even thereafter has suffered a permanent disability. Throughout her life she has to live like a disabled person facing the cruel comments passed by her co-students and others. The agony of a small child who has to undergo such harsh treatment cannot even be imagined. Though the disability may be less, the trauma on the child is great and, therefore, I assess the compensation for loss of amenities of life and future discomfort at Rs. 50,000/-. 16. The claimant is a young girl. She has been permanently disabled and obviously in the marriage market she will suffer and, therefore, I award her Rs. 25,000/- for loss of marital prospects. Therefore, the total compensation is assessed at Rs. (60,000 + 20,000 + 20,000 + 30,000 + 50,000 + 25,000) = Rs. 2,05,000/-. 17. Now comes the crucial issue as to who should pay the amount of compensation. Unfortunately, the claimant has not led any evidence to show that the vehicle was insured. The Insurance Company in its reply has denied that the vehicle was insured and stated that the owner should produce the policy of insurance as well as the driving license of the driver. There is no proof to show that the vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company and, therefore, it cannot be held liable to pay the same. However, I am not giving any final finding on this issue since the owner has not appeared and if the owner comes and proves that he has a valid insurance policy and has not violated the terms of the policy, he may claim the amount awarded from the Insurance Company in separate proceedings. 18. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the claimant is awarded compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/-. On this amount, the claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment of the amount. The amount shall be paid by the respondent No. 1 Sri Kishore Roy, owner of the vehicle. 19. 2,05,000/-. On this amount, the claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment of the amount. The amount shall be paid by the respondent No. 1 Sri Kishore Roy, owner of the vehicle. 19. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Send down the lower court records forthwith.