ORAL JUDGMENT : RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant-original claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31st December 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Court No. 19, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 396 of 2001. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Bharat B. Shah vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding a sum of Rs.32,500/-only against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to the facts of the case set out in paragraph No.2 of the impugned judgment and award which are reproduced for the ready perusal. “2. The case of the applicants in nutshell is as follows:- That on 17.10.2000, in the morning at around 9:30am., minor applicant was crossing the road at that time one vehicle being Auto Rickshaw bearing No.GJ-1-X-300 with rash, negligent manner and endangering a human life, dashed with the applicant. The applicant sustained fracture injuries in his left leg and also other parts of the body. Thereafter, he was admitted in Hospital of Dr. Pakshesh Shah as indoor patient. In this regard, the complaint had been lodged against opponent no.1 i.e. driver of the Auto Rickshaw with Naranpura Police Station vide 1-CR.No.609/2000. Hence, the claimants have filed this claim petition for recover of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-along with interest, costs, etc. from the opponents with their joint and several liabilities.” 3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the monthly income of the injured at Rs.1,250/-per month, and treating ten per cent permanent disability, has assessed the future loss of income at Rs.22,500/-, and awarded only Rs.5,000/-towards attendants and transportation charges, special diets and pain, shock and sufferings to the petitioner, and awarded Rs.5,000/-towards medical treatment expenses. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded separate amount for pain, shock and suffering. He further submitted that similarly, separate amount for transportation charges and separate amount for special diet should have been awarded by the Honourable Tribunal. As the Honourable Tribunal has clubbed all these heads together and has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-only, it has resulted into gross injustice to the claimant. 5. Learned advocate Mr. He further submitted that similarly, separate amount for transportation charges and separate amount for special diet should have been awarded by the Honourable Tribunal. As the Honourable Tribunal has clubbed all these heads together and has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-only, it has resulted into gross injustice to the claimant. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the judgment and award cannot be found fault with, particularly in light of the fact that the insured was a minor aged about seven years at the time of accident, and he suffered a fracture on tibia fibula left side, and he was required to be treated for the same. He submitted that in absence of any proof of income, and in absence of any evidence for medical expenses, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a round figure of Rs.5,000/-. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat for the Insurance Company submitted that if the Court deems it proper, the Court may consider awarding some reasonable amount towards pain, shock and suffering, because the Honourable Tribunal has not awarded any amount separately under the head of pain, shock and suffering, which is normally considered by the Tribunal as a separate head. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering, and taking into consideration the fact that the accident took place in the year 2000 and the boy had suffered fracture of tibia fibula, an amount of Rs.15,000/-is awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering, and taking into consideration the fact that as there was a fracture, the child must have remained confined in bed for at least not less than six weeks, the attendance charges, transportation charges and special diets are also required to be considered along with the medical expenses, and therefore, in all Rs.5,000/-extra is awarded, totalling to Rs.20,000/-as an additional amount. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to that effect and the amount instead of Rs.32,500/-, it will be 52,500/-. Learned advocate Mr. Bharat B. Shah for the appellant-claimant invited the attention of the Court to a judgment and award dated 22nd April 2014 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.389 of 2001, wherein the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. Learned advocate Mr. Bharat B. Shah for the appellant-claimant invited the attention of the Court to a judgment and award dated 22nd April 2014 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.389 of 2001, wherein the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. In that Motor Accident Claim Petition, the accident had occurred on 19th April 2000. In the present case also, the accident had occurred in the year 2000 and interest awarded is at the rate of seven and half per cent per annum only. Awarding interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum in another case amounts to discrimination for no justifiable reason. Therefore, to take care of the same, the rate of interest is modified to be nine per cent per annum instead of seven and half per cent per annum. The First Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.