JUDGMENT : This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant by questioning the impugned judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Haveri, dated 05.01.2009, passed in M.V.C. No.183/2006 by awarding compensation for a sum of Rs.1,51,250/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to in this appeal, according to their rank before the Tribunal. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that on 24.09.2004, the petitioner after his lunch at about 2:45 p.m. left his house along with his son Basavaraja towards his brother’s house, on the left side of Savanur Gadag road in Yalavigi. At that time, one Government Jeep bearing No.CAG4706 came from Savanur towards Yalavigi in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit to the petitioner’s son Basavaraj. As a result of it, Basavaraja sustained grievous injuries to his head as well as to his right foot and immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital at Savanur and then he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi for higher treatment, where he took treatment and got operated to his head and right foot and was inpatient for more than two months. The petitioner being a minor aged about 6 years, represented by his minor guardian, natural father and has filed the petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 4. On receipt of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed objections contending that the petition is false and concocted for the purpose of filing the claim petition and also denied the entire allegations made in the petition. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Based upon the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries in the motor accident that occurred on 24.09.2004 at about 3:00 p.m. on Savanur Gadag road, at Yalavigi, while he was going on the left side of the road? 2. Whether petitioner further proves that, the above said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep bearing No.CAG4706? 3. Whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation? Of so, to what amount and from whom? 4. What order or award? 6. 2. Whether petitioner further proves that, the above said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep bearing No.CAG4706? 3. Whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation? Of so, to what amount and from whom? 4. What order or award? 6. In order to substantiate the case, the guardian of the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and also examined Dr.Kantesh, as PW2 and also got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P103 and closed his side. Respondents have not examined any witnesses and closed their side. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimant has established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and its insurance coverage. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and consequently awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,51,250/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of entire amount from the respondents under the following heads. 1. Injury, pain and suffering Rs.24,000/- 2. Nourishment food, attendant charges & conveyance Rs.9,750/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.12,000/- 4. Loss of earning during the period of treatment Rs.6,500/- 5. Permanent disability Rs.99,000/- Total Rs.1,51,250/- 7. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law, arbitrary and the records of the case is against the principles of natural justice. The compensation awarded by Tribunal is totally in adequate compared to the records of the case. Therefore, in this appeal the interference of this Court into the impugned judgment is required by considering the evidence putforth by PW1 and PW2 Doctor as well as the documents at Exs.P1 to P103, produced to establish the case against the respondents. It is further pointed out that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant due to the accident, as the same is reflected in the wound certificate. The injured being a minor, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred solely because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The injured being a minor, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred solely because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it ought to have been awarded compensation in all the heads, as they sought for by filing the petition before the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the compensation under different heads. 8. In respect of assessment of compensation in case of children suffering disability, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed a reliance of the judgment in the case of Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another reported in 2013 ACJ 2445 , wherein it is held at paragraph Nos.8 to 12 as under: “8. It is unfortunate that both the Tribunal and the High Court have not properly appreciated the medical evidence available in the case. The age of the child and deformities on his body resulting in disability, have not been duly taken note of. As held by this Court in R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, while assessing the non-pecuniary damages, the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely to be suffered, any future damages for the loss of amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation in active sports, etc., damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc., have to be addressed especially in the case of a child victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come. While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. The main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For children there is no income. The only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the notional income as Rs.15,000/per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. The only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the notional income as Rs.15,000/per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. Appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In other words, apart from this head, there shall only be the claim for the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation, etc. 9. Sapna vs. United Indian Insurance Company Limited and Another is the case of a 12 year old girl who suffered 90% disability in her left leg. This Court granted a lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/on these heads. 10. In Iranna vs. Mohammadali Khadarsab Mulla and Another, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court granted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/on these heads to the child who suffered 80% permanent disability. 11. In Kum. Michael vs. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another, this Court considered the case of an eight year old child suffering a fracture on both legs with total disability only to the tune of 16%. It was held that the child should be entitled to an amount of Rs.3,80,000/on these counts. 12. 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, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.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 hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents.” 9. Per contra, the learned AGA for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the same shall be maintained as there are no justifiable grounds to urge by the appellant for seeking enhancement of compensation as they sought for by urging the various grounds. Thereby, the learned counsel for the respondents sought for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 10. Keeping in view of the contentions that has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for respondents, it is relevant to state that PW1 has stated in his evidence that due to fracture injuries to his son, his son is not able to sit, walk completely and he has to be attended by an attendant daily for day today work. The petitioner has also adduced the evidence of Dr.Kantesh. The said Doctor in his evidence has stated that there is fracture of metatarsals with fracture dislocation of phalanges to right foot. In conclusion, after noticing old record and after clinical, radiological and evaluation of the total permanent physical impairment is 82% to his right lower limb. He has also issued disability certificate as per Ex.P99. However, the said doctor has deposed in the cross-examination that if the above disability is taken into consideration towards whole body, the disability may reduce and the said disability may also differ from doctor to doctor. However, the petitioner has to suffer some inconvenience in his future. Hence, looking to the grievousness of the injuries, it is just and proper to take the permanent physical disability at 60%, as the injured being minor aged about 6 years at the time of accident. The ratio of reliance in the case of Mallikarjun referred supra, which has placed by the appellant squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of case on hand. The ratio of reliance in the case of Mallikarjun referred supra, which has placed by the appellant squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of case on hand. Wherein it is held that the principles of assessment of compensation in case of children suffering disability, it is observed that appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant etc., should be given, as if the permanent disability to the whole body is up to 10% it should be Rs.1,00,000/, above 10% and up to 30% Rs.3,00,000/; up to 60% Rs.4,00,000/; up to 90% Rs.5,00,000/and above 90% it should be Rs.6,00,000/, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardsticks. However, it has observed in the aforesaid judgment, which has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant that it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. 11. The main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For children there is no income. The only indication in the second schedule for non-earning persons is to take to notional income as Rs.15,000/per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the action amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant etc., The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limb. Therefore, in the present case, the injuredBasavaraj, who is being a minor aged about 6 years, who met with an accident and suffered injuries, as noted in the wound certificate for which he has taken and the Tribunal has taken the disability at 60% to the whole body. Therefore, in the present case, the injuredBasavaraj, who is being a minor aged about 6 years, who met with an accident and suffered injuries, as noted in the wound certificate for which he has taken and the Tribunal has taken the disability at 60% to the whole body. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,51,250/under various heads with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation, but for the reasons assigned in this appeal and keeping in view of the evidence of PW2, Doctor, who issued disability certificate, as per Ex.P99 and also the grounds urged in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the decision placed by him, interference of this Court into the impugned judgment is required by enhancing the compensation under the head permanent disability at Rs.4,00,000/instead of Rs.99,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The rest of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the tabular form are undisturbed. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reassessed as under: 1. Injury, pain and suffering Rs.24,000/- 2. Nourishment food, attendant charges & conveyance Rs.9,750/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.12,000/- 4. Loss of earning during the period of treatment Rs.6,500/- 5. Permanent disability Rs.4,00,000/- Total Rs.4,52,250/- 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,52,250/instead of Rs.1,51,250/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization of the entire amount. However, the Tribunal has passed the award stating that the entire compensation amount awarded shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of five years or till he attains the age of majority, whichever is later. Whereas in this appeal also the appellant shall deposit the entire compensation amount in Fixed Deposit in any nationalised or commercial Bank for a period of five years or till he attains the age of majority, whichever is later and the guardian/father is permitted to withdraw interest that accrues on it from time to time for the welfare of the injured/claimant being a minor.