JUDGMENT : S. Sujatha, J. - The Insurer as well as the claimant are before this Court challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Athani, ['Tribunal, for short], in MVC No.2300/2009. 2. The claimant being a minor aged about eight filed the claim petition represents d through her guardian-father seeking compensation for the accidental injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22.09.2009 alleging actionable negligence of the driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 23/W 4550. The Insurer resisted the claim. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded the total compensation of Rs.3,43,800/- with interest at 9% per annum. Being aggrieved, the Insurer is challenging the impugned Judgment and Award mainly on the ground that there was inconsistency in Exhibit.P6, wound certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Athani and Exhibit.P37, injury certificate issued by the Chandrapattan Hospital, Miraj. Placing reliance on these documents, learned Counsel submits that the injury certificate at Exhibit.P37 is only an exaggeration, contradictory' to Exhibit.P6. The injuries mentioned in Exhibit.P37 does not figure in Exhibit.P6. As such, no probative value could be given to Exhibit.P37 and the testimony of the Doctor who had issued Exhibit.P37. The learned Counsel would further challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as being excessive. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant contends that the accident occurred on 22.9.2009 on Athani-Jambagi Road. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Athani where no x-ray facilities were available. Subsequently, on the same day, the injured was shifted to Chandrapattan Hospital, Miraj for further treatment. On the advice of the Doctor, x-rays were taken, x-ray report discloses that the injured had suffered fracture of fibula and tibia, the injured was hospitalized from 22.9.2009 and was operated for the fracture injuries, steel rods were inserted. The injured was discharged from the Hospital on 24.10.2009 as per the discharge certificate at Exhibit.P38. 4. The Insurer is disputing the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant only on suspicion. It is not uncommon for the patients to take first aid treatment immediately after the accident at the nearby Hospital. The nature of injuries would be ascertained only after detailed investigation. Such investigation was conducted at Chandrapattan Hospital at Miraj, the injury certificate issued at Exhibit.P37 clearly establishes the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is not uncommon for the patients to take first aid treatment immediately after the accident at the nearby Hospital. The nature of injuries would be ascertained only after detailed investigation. Such investigation was conducted at Chandrapattan Hospital at Miraj, the injury certificate issued at Exhibit.P37 clearly establishes the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is only on hyper technicalities, in order to escape the liability of indemnifying the owner, the insurer is challenging the impugned Judgment and Award, not supported by any concrete material evidence. The insurer has failed to adduce any evidence in support of the defence taken in the claim proceedings. As such, the insurer is estopped from taking a new plea in the appellate proceedings, challenging the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The claimant was hospitalized from 22.9.2009 to 24.10.2009, undergone surgery with the orthopedic implants fixed in, to set right the fracture of fibula and tibia. These aspects cannot be ignored by the mere allegations made by the insurer. As such, learned Counsel seeks to reject the challenge made by the Insurer and prays for enhancement of compensation awarded. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and penised the material on record. 6. The points urged by the Insurer regarding the inconsistency found at Exhibits.P6 and P37 is only speculative, based on assumptions and presumptions. The wound certificate issued at the first aid centre need not be the verbatim repetition of the injuries disclosed in the certificate issued by the Hospital where the injured had taken treatment after thorough investigation. The first contention of the Insurer fails. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is manifestly clear that the Doctor who was examined as PW.3 had assessed the total permanent physical disability to an extent of 15% to the whole body. Considering the same as an exaggeration, the Tribunal assessed the disability to the whole body of the injured at 10% in the background of the injury certificate and the age factor of the injured. The said disability assessed at 10% is reasonable and cannot be found fault with. 8. Considering the same as an exaggeration, the Tribunal assessed the disability to the whole body of the injured at 10% in the background of the injury certificate and the age factor of the injured. The said disability assessed at 10% is reasonable and cannot be found fault with. 8. In the circumstances, to assess the compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by the minor child, it would be beneficial to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Master Mallikarjun v. The National Insurance Company Limited' reported in AIR 2014 SC 736 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the just and reasonable compensation that could be awarded for the permanent disability assessed at 10% and below would be Rs. 1.00,000/-. Applying the same principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MASTER MALLIK-ARJUN's case [supra], the appellant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards pain and suffering, discomforts, inconvenience, loss of camings etc. A sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be awarded towards medical expenses. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled to sum of Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant was a minor girl aged eight years at the time of the accident. The disability certificate at Exhibit.P37 discloses shortening of half centimeter of the left leg of the minor claimant. For a girl, this deformity would reduce or diminish the marriage prospects. In view of the same, this court is of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be the just and equitable compensation towards impact on marriage prospects. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under: Particulars Amount [in Rs.] Pain and suffering 1,00,000 Discomfort, inconvenience, loss of earnings 25,000 Medical expenses 1,00,000 Future medical expenses 30,000 Loss of amenities due to permanent disability and for loss of marriage prospects 25,000 TOTAL 2,80,000 10. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs 2,80,000/- as against Rs.3,43,800/-awarded. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 11. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the above. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement.