JUDGMENT 1. - Instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the claimant/ appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 12.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Dholpur in claim case No. 333/2006, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 12,50,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant/appellant. 2. The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record, are that on 28.9.2006 at about 5.30 P.M. in the evening, while the appellant who was aged 141/2 years ms going to her house after taking tuition by bicycle on bye-pass road near Baseri and when she reached near a water tank, then a truck bearing No. MP-06-E-4435, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by driver, hit the bicycle of the appellant and on account of the said accident her right leg got seriously injured and she sustained serious injuries. She received many injuries on other part of the body as well and bicycle was broken. 3. She was taken immediately to S.R. Nursing Home Agra where her right leg below knee had to be amputated and on account of the said amputation serious disability has been caused to the appellant. It was claimed that she was studying in class 10th and on account of the said accident and amputation her entire life lias been spoilt as she would be unable to do anything in life as she was doing prior to the accident. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the entire facts and material on record and after going through the evidence led on behalf of the appellant, on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged against the truck driver (Bhullan Khan) as also Charge Sheet filed in Appropriate Court under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. and on the basis of other evidence led, came to be conclusion that on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck, accident took place and appellant sustained serious injuries. It was admitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was insured with them and since no particular objection was here on behalf of Insurance Company, the Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable to pay the claim and accordingly, considering age of the appellant to be 141/2 years at the time of incident, allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the appellant. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim allowed is too little/meagre as the entire life of the appellant has come to a stand still and on account of the loss of limb (amputation). She would be unable to do anything pood in her life and will always be dependent on someone even for small matter. account of the said serious disability, she would be unable to get married and enjoy other things in life which she would have enjoyed prior to the said accident and she would face severe hardship being a girl. 6. He further contended that the Tribunal without any evidence, has allowed a lump sum amount to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- which is too little and deserves be increased/enhanced reasonably. He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd., &Anr., reported in 2013(2) WLC (SC) Civil 435 : MACD 2013 (SC) 300 ; Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company, reported in 2013(2) WLC (SC) Civil 470 : MACD 2013 (SC) 303 ; Kishan Copal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors., reported in 2013(2) WLC (SC) Civil 443 : MACD 2013 (SC) 289 ; Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 488 : MACD 2012 (SC) 28 ; & S.M. Sharmila v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 144 : MACD 2012 (SC) 37. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claim allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper as the said amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, for on incident which has happened in 2006, is most appropriate and reasonable and it is not required to be interfered with. However, he admitted that on the basis of the evidence, amputation of right leg has been proved and he further admitted that the appellant was only about 141/2 of age but she had no apparent source of income, therefore, the Tribunal has correctly allowed the said award to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- which is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. 2,50,000/- which is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In my view, thought the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record but the manner in which the compensation has been awarded, appears to be not proper and the compensation deserves to be enhanced for the reason subsequent. 10. Admittedly, the appellant, who is a girl child just aged about 141/2 years, who studying in class 10th who is yet to enjoy life and would have soon entered the real life sustained 75% disability at this young age and had to loose her limb which is so vital for a human being. Techniques have been developed by which an artificial limb can be placed but a real and original limb can never be replaced by an artificial one. No amount of compensation can fill this gap. 11. It is also certain that the appellant would suffer this mental agony for all times to come and would always be dependent on someone even for small matters. Certainly, she would also be denied the right of marriage which she may have dreamt after a few years as none would agree to marry the appellant on account of the serious disability. Admittedly, the Medical Board Certificate issued by the Government Hospital Dholpur has stated this fact in its disability certificate (Exhibit-11) and has also opined 75% disability on account of the said amputation. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. , (supra) when the appellant in that case, was aged about 12 years, allowed a total compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- and observed as under:- "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 for treatment, attendant to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs. 3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs. 4 lakhs; up to 90% X 5 lakhs and above 90%, its should be Rs. 6 lakh. For permanent disability up to 10% it should be Rs. 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18% Appellant had a longer period of hospitalisation for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents. The appellant, hence would be entitled to get the compensation as follow: Head Compensation Amount ( L ) Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts, etc. and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. 3,00,000/- Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalisation. 25,000/- Medical and incidental expenses during the period of hospitalisation for 58 days. 25,000/- Future medical expenses for correction of the mal union of fracture and incidental expenses for such treatment. 25,000/- Total 3,75,000/- 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance Company Limited , (supra), allowed total compensation of Rs. 9,53,600/-in the said case when in that case, left leg was amputated below the knee and when the appellant in that case was 24 years of age. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & ors. , (supra) when the deceased in that case was aged about 10 years, the Hon'ble Apex Count allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Court in the case of Sudershan Jha v. fadish Bairwa & Ors., in SB CMA No. 967/2007 vide judgment Order dated 4.3.2014 , has allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 6,67,520/-. Though of course in that case the injured was aged about 35 years and was working where also amputation of leg was there, In my view, it would be appropriate to allow the compensation not in the manner, allowed by the Tribunal but in the manner subsequently specified. 15. I would direct adopting income of Rs. 15,000/- which is the national income being adopted in a case of a non earning person accordingly, income of Rs. 15. I would direct adopting income of Rs. 15,000/- which is the national income being adopted in a case of a non earning person accordingly, income of Rs. 15,000/-per annum is adopted as the annual income of the appellant, since the appellant is aged about 141/2 years, multiplier of 15 is required to be allowed. 16. In the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra, the other amounts which is deemed appropriate are allowed as under:- L A Notional Income 15,000/- B Multiplier 15,000 x 15 2,25,000/- C Mental Agony & Pain 1,00,000/- D Loss of amenities of life 1,00,000/- E Medical Expenses allowed by the Tribunal 50,000/- F Future Medical Expenses 50,000/- G Expenses incurred on account of hospitalisation, nutritious diet, conyence etc. 50,000/- H Loss of enjoying married life 50,000/- I Artificial Limb 40,000/- Total 6,65,000 Less: compensation awarded by the Tribunal 2,50,000/- Amount enhanced 4,15,000/- 17. Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 4,15,000/-, as aforesaid, is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. 18. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award date 12.11.2007 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- with interest @ 6% will be paid by the respondent-Insurance; Company. The interest will however be allowed from the date of the award by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit 95% of the enhanced amount win interest so computed rounded off to the nearest thousands in the name of the claimant/appellant in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) in the nearest Post Office for a period of five years. The interest accruing on month to month basis will he deposited in the saving account with the same Post Office with permission to withdraw monthly interest/quarterly interest as per the scheme of the Post Office. The balance 5% of the enhanced amount with interest would be disbursed to the claimant/appellant by the Tribunal by Bank Draft/Bankers Cheque. It is made clear that the appellant will be allowed interest only as aforesaid of 95% of the enhanced amount so deposited in MIS and will not be allowed to take loan on the same from the post office or raise loan on the said MIS. The Appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******