JUDGMENT : Sahidullah Munshi, J. This appeal arises out of judgment and award passed by the M.A.C Tribunal Second Court Burdwan in M.A.C. case No. 40/240 of 1983/1987. The award has been passed in an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 which now corresponds to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. The application has been filed by the petitioner Chhatelal Barnwal representing his minor son Santoshlal Barnwal claiming compensation on account of injury sustained by the said Santoshlal in a motor accident caused by a dumper bearing No. WMH7157 belonging to opposite party No.1 Area Manager (ECL) Haripur Colliery Area and insured by the opposite party No.3 National Insurance Company Limited. 2. Petitioner's case in short is that on 15th September 1987 at about 16.15 hours while the victim Santoshlal was on his way to Haripur on cycle on his left on Raniganj Suri Road at that time one E.C.L. dumper bearing Registration No. WMH-7157 suddenly came from New Kenda Colliery at the crossing of Raniganj Suri Road and New Kenda Colliery More and the driver of the dumper dashed against the said cyclist rashly and negligently, as a result of which the cyclist fell down and the driver of the dumper ran over the right leg of the victim Santoshlal and fled away from the spot towards Haripur. The Victim received fracture injury and was removed to Asansol L.M. Hospital, where ultimately his right leg was amputated. Such amputation of leg rendered the victim permanently disabled. The accident was witnessed by one Chakradhar Rana and others. Chakradhar Rana lodged a written complaint with Officer in Charge Jamuria Police and as a result thereof Jamuria Police Station Case No.9 dated 15.09.1987 under Section 279/338 Indian Penal Code was started. It is the case of the petitioner that the victim was required to be sent to Pune for further treatment for setting up artificial leg but could not be done so. The victim is a meritorious student of Class-VI of Adarsha Bal Vikash Vidyalaya of New Kenda Colliery and in support thereof he filed a certificate from the Headmaster of the institution. The petitioner on behalf of his minor son has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only. 3. The victim is a meritorious student of Class-VI of Adarsha Bal Vikash Vidyalaya of New Kenda Colliery and in support thereof he filed a certificate from the Headmaster of the institution. The petitioner on behalf of his minor son has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only. 3. Opposite party National Insurance Company Limited contested the claim application by filing written statement denying all material allegations contending, inter-alia, that at the relevant time of occurrence the dumper was proceeding at a moderate speed on the left side of the road and the cyclist was coming from opposite direction with high speed which dashed against the dumper and loosing control he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The cyclist was absolutely responsible for the accident. The claim of compensation is baseless and was exaggerated one. The dumper was however, covered under a valid policy of insurance issued by the opposite party insurer. 4. Opposite party/agent, Haripur Colliery contested the claim application by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations contained in the application and contended that at the relevant time the dumper in question was driven with moderate speed and while it had to take a turn to the right near Kenda More Golai all on a sudden three boys were going side by side on their cycles with high speed and that those cyclists collided with each other and fell down and dashed against the front wheel of the dumper when the driver applied full brake to avoid any accident. One of the boys was injured due to heavy jerk of the vehicle. Victim Santoshlal was solely responsible for the accident. It said that if any award is to be passed the same is to be borne by the opposite party National Insurance Company Limited. 5. In support of the petitioner's case he adduced oral evidence and filed connected documents in Court for consideration. PW1 Chhatelal is the petitioner and father of victim Santoshlal Barnwal. In his deposition Chhatelal the father of the victim stated that he is the petitioner and Santoshlal is his son who was 11 years old on the date of accident. 5. In support of the petitioner's case he adduced oral evidence and filed connected documents in Court for consideration. PW1 Chhatelal is the petitioner and father of victim Santoshlal Barnwal. In his deposition Chhatelal the father of the victim stated that he is the petitioner and Santoshlal is his son who was 11 years old on the date of accident. The accident took place on 15th September 1987 at about 4.15p.m. near New Kenda More on Raniganj Suri More while his son was gossiping with his schoolmates and he was with a cycle, a dumper came and dashed his son and fled away. He did not see the accident. After the accident he arrived at the place of occurrence and found his injured son lying on the road. He then lifted his son and took him to local doctor Baidyanath Paul and as per his advice he took his injured son to Asansol L.M. Hospital according to him one Chakradhar Rana reported the occurrence to the police station. Right leg from the knee joint of his son was amputated at Asansol Hospital. santosh is his only son. Santosh was a student of Class-X. He filed all connected papers like FIR, disablement certificate, school certificate, and photo of his disabled son. He has received Rs. 7500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only as compensation in the previous case and that he has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only in this case. 6. In his cross-examination by the National Insurance Company PW1 stated that his house is about 100 cubits away from the place of occurrence. At the place of occurrence the road was wide enough to allow movement of 2/3 buses at a time. He can not say the names of the schoolmates with whom his son was gossiping at the time of occurrence. He did not see the dumper. His son was a student of New Kenda Adarsha Bal Vikash Vidyalaya at the time of occurrence. He was six years old at the time of his admission at the school. He got him admitted in Class V in 1981-82. He got a tea and betel leaf shop. 7. Santoshlal also deposed as PW2. He said he was 18 years old and resides at New Kenda Police Station, Burdwan. He was six years old at the time of his admission at the school. He got him admitted in Class V in 1981-82. He got a tea and betel leaf shop. 7. Santoshlal also deposed as PW2. He said he was 18 years old and resides at New Kenda Police Station, Burdwan. He said the occurrence took place on 15th September, 1987 around 4.15p.m. He was standing with his cycle on Suri Road at the relevant time. The road was known as Suri Asansol Road. He was standing on the left side on the road and was talking with 3/4 friends. At that time a dumper came from behind and dashed him on his right leg after such a dash he fell down on the road and was run over under the dumper. He saw the number of the dumper which is WMH-7157. He did not lose his sense. At that time many people assembled there. His father also went there at the place of occurrence. One Chakradhar Rana, Ajodhya Burnwal also arrived at the place of occurrence. He was removed to Asansol L.M. Hospital where he was treated as indoor patient for about two months fifteen days. At the hospital his right leg was amputated and subsequently he was discharged. Because of insufficient fund he could not go to Pune for the purpose of artificial leg as advised by the doctor. He appeared at Madhyamik examination in that year when he was deposing before the Court. In an earlier proceeding his father as guardian obtained Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only as compensation. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only in this case. He is the only son of his father. He has filed all connected papers in Court. In cross-examination by the National Insurance Company Limited PW2 stated that his father got no other name besides Chhatelal. Chakradhar lodged complaint at the police station. He saw the accident. He had talk with him with regard to the occurrence. He had good relationship with Chakradhar. Chakradhar reported to the police station whatever he saw. Not a fact that it is in correct to say that he was standing with the cycle on the roadside at the time of occurrence. Not a fact that he was riding on a cycle at the time of occurrence with high speed. He had good relationship with Chakradhar. Chakradhar reported to the police station whatever he saw. Not a fact that it is in correct to say that he was standing with the cycle on the roadside at the time of occurrence. Not a fact that he was riding on a cycle at the time of occurrence with high speed. Not a fact that he did not notice the moving dumper and dashed against the same. Not a fact that the accident took place due to his fault or that the accident took place because of his desperate driving of cycle at the time of occurrence. He said that it was truly reported in the FIR that he was riding on a cycle towards Haripur keeping to the left side of Suri road. His father has got a tea stall. He could show the papers that he appeared at the Madhyamik examination that year. His father bore the expenses entered for his affairs. Not a fact that it is incorrect to say that he was dashed from behind by the dumper. He could not say the basis of his claim. He did not file any paper relating to expenses incurred for his medical treatment. Not a fact that his claim is excessive or unreasonable. The dumper belongs to the E.C.L. Manager. E.C.L. had borne the expenses for his medical treatment. 8. On consideration of the materials available on record and the documents filed in the case the learned Tribunal came to a finding that according to the xerox copy of the prescription issued from Asansol sub divisional Hospital. it appeared that Santosh became orthopaedically handicapped and percentage of permanent disablement was to the extent of 60%. Tribunal also came to a finding that it transpired from the evidence deposed therein and the documents mentioned herein above the accident was caused by the dumper bearing No. WMH-7157 belonging to the opposite party No.1 and was insured by opposite party No.3 which was driven rashly and negligently at the time occurrence. Tribunal held that rashness and negligence of the driver concerned is evident from the very fact that the accident took place at a crossing point and admittedly school boys were going on cycles and considering the situations the driver should have exercised more care and caution as is expected from a driver in such situation in order to avoid any sought of accident. Lack of due care and caution on the part of the driver also became apparent from the very fact that immediately after the accident the driver fled away from the spot without informing any authority about the accident or taking any care of the victim. Tribunal held that admittedly Santosh sustained grievous injuries in the accident and his right leg was amputated from nee joint making him physically handicapped and 60% permanently disabled. Tribunal held that there could not be any dispute to the fact that the victim is deprived permanently to the said extent of 60% enjoyment of his life and all amenities which might have accrued to him during his life time and had there been no accident and disfiguration of his body caused to him. Tribunal has held that admittedly father of the victim has got a tea stall and betel leaf shop and accordingly Tribunal held that it could be safely assumed that had there been no accident to the victim he could have well earned a sum of Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six Hundred) only per month and because of the accident resulting in amputation in right leg causing 60% permanent disablement, the victims entitlement to compensation comes to Rs. 360/- (Rupees Three Hundred Sixty) only per month. This view of the Tribunal awarding compensation taking Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six Hundred) only per month and earning of the victim cannot be accepted. According to the principle laid down in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra reported in 1996 ACJ 831 it is the rule that just compensation has to be paid. The compensation in this case has to be calculated on the basis of the income and/or earning of the victim from the said shop. But no evidence is coming as to the earning from the said shop of his father. In that case just compensation can be calculated taking at least Rs. 50/- (Rupees Fifty) only per day in this case by way of estimation which is permissible in law. The monthly income of the victim is taken to be Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) only. The annual income would be Rs. 1,500/- X 12 = Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand) only. 60% of the said income comes to Rs. 18,000/- X 60/100= Rs. 10,800/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight Hundred) only. The monthly income of the victim is taken to be Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) only. The annual income would be Rs. 1,500/- X 12 = Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand) only. 60% of the said income comes to Rs. 18,000/- X 60/100= Rs. 10,800/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight Hundred) only. The said amount is to be multiplied by multiplier 15 applicable for the age group up to 15 years = Rs. 1,62,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand) only. 9. Therefore, the claimant/petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand) only which is payable by the opposite party No.3. United Insurance Company Limited within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order, less the amount already paid to the claimant. The total amount of compensation shall also bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum payable from the date of application for claim till full liquidation thereof. Indira Banerjee, J : I agree.