JUDGMENT : B.S. Patil, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the injured claimant in a sum of Rs. 4,92,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. 2. Facts involved in the case, stated in nutshell are that Kumari Roopa Bai, eleven year old girl met with an accident on 09-08-2000 while she was standing on the left side of the road at Shravandanahalli in Madhugiri Taluk when the Ambassador car driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against her causing crush injury in the left foot and other injuries over her body. She was shifted to Government Hospital at Kodigenahalli and thereafter, to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru. According to her, she was inpatient for about two months. 3. Contending that the accident resulted in permanent disability as she was deprived of her earning capacity and educational and marriage prospects, she approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal through her father and natural guardian. 4. During the pendency of claim petition, she has attained majority and has adduced her evidence as P.W.1. Dr. K.V. Venkatesh Babu who has examined her adduced his evidence as P.W.2. Exs. P1 to P22 have been produced and marked in evidence. Respondents including the Insurance Company have not adduced any evidence. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under different heads as under :- 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- 2. Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 4,32,000/- 3. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 25,000/- 4. Food, conveyance & medical expenses during treatment period Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 4,92,000/- 5. As regard loss of earning capacity, Tribunal has persuaded itself to take the monthly income of the injured claimant at Rs. 2,000/- and loss of earning capacity as 100%. Applying multiplier of 18, an amount of Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rs. 2000/- x 12 x 100% x 18) has been awarded as against this head. It is in this area, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company Sri. Umesh has strongly urged that even in the face of medical evidence adduced, particularly that of P.W.2 - Dr. Venkatesh Babu, tribunal was not at all justified in taking the permanent disability at 100%. In this regard, he has taken me through the evidence of the claimant P.W.1 and the doctor P.W.2. Umesh has strongly urged that even in the face of medical evidence adduced, particularly that of P.W.2 - Dr. Venkatesh Babu, tribunal was not at all justified in taking the permanent disability at 100%. In this regard, he has taken me through the evidence of the claimant P.W.1 and the doctor P.W.2. It is urged by him that even as per the evidence of the doctor, permanent disability compared to the whole body could not be more than 25%. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant supports the judgment and award passed and urges that if overall facts and circumstances of the case are taken into consideration and the nature and grievousness of the injury suffered by the claimant is kept in mind, the total amount awarded as compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,92,000/- does not warrant interference. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal has committed any illegality in assessing the compensation and awarding a sum of Rs. 4,92,000/- as total compensation for the injuries suffered? If so what order? 8. Evidence of the doctor discloses that claimant has suffered crush injury on the left foot leaving the left foot disfigured. It is also clear from the evidence that left foot was partially amputated. The claimant was unable to move the left foot joint and movement of the left ankle joint was painful. X-ray revealed that 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal bones of the left foot were absent. The doctor has further noticed that claimant could not walk even for half a kilo-meter and could not stand on the left leg and could not take turns on the legs and could not squat on the ground. 9. Evidence of P.W.1 claimant discloses that she is unable to carry on any work involving physical exertion apart from not being capable of walking independently and carrying on any hard work. Thus, it is clear that a girl child has been physically incapacitated to a great extent and her future prospects have been robbed off on account of accidental injuries. A realistic assessment of compensation was, therefore, required to be done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded very meager compensation as regards pain and suffering in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and loss of marriage prospects in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. A realistic assessment of compensation was, therefore, required to be done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded very meager compensation as regards pain and suffering in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and loss of marriage prospects in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The nature of pain and suffering undergone, having regard to the crush injury and the amputation of foot suffered by the claimant, if assessed realistically, has to be at Rs. 50,000/-. Similarly, as the claimant is a girl child and she has lost marriage prospects, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- has to be awarded under this head. 10. Insofar as loss of future earning capacity is concerned, as rightly submit by the counsel for the appellant, it is not the case where claimant has lost 100% earning capacity. Evidence of the doctor read with the evidence of the claimant would disclose that she is incapable of discharging any hard work involving physical labour. Therefore, so far as work involving physical exertion is concerned, she is fully and totally incapacitated. However, claimant is capable of discharging other lighter works. This aspect has not be taken into account by the Tribunal. The doctor has also not stated that she is completely rendered incapacitated to do any other work independently. Therefore, while awarding compensation against future loss of earning, in my view, it would be just and appropriate to assess the loss of earning capacity at 50% instead of 100%. Thus, loss of earning capacity would come to Rs. 2,16,000/- (2000 x 12 x 50% x 18). 11. With regard to loss of amenities, no amount has been awarded. The girl child has lost the prospects of participating in games and pursuing her studies to realise her dreams. Therefore, towards loss of amenities, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded. So far as award for food, conveyance and medical expenses, amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded does not call for interference. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Total compensation awarded is reduced and fixed at Rs. 4,16,000/- payable with interest at 6% p.a. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to Tribunal for disbursal in terms the direction of the Tribunal.