JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 30.6.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahal at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1480 of 2008, the appellant-original claimant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Heard Mr. Chetankumar Shah, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Lakhani, learned advocate for respondent no.2 – insurance Company. It was pointed out that the appeal is directed only against the quantum aspect and the liability of the insurance Company is not challenged. It was also pointed out that no appeal is preferred by the insurance Company and therefore, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. In light of the aforesaid facts, both the learned advocates were heard for final disposal. The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have also produced on record a copy of the examination-in-chief Exh.29 and the documentary evidences Exhs.31 to 39 for perusal of this Court. 3. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal: That, the accident took place on 19.6.2008 at about 09:00 hrs. at Village Dalol and the appellant who was a minor got injured in the said accident which took place between the rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-17 U-4677 which according to the appellant – original claimant was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in an excessive speed. The FIR was lodged with Kalol Police Station bearing CR no.181/08 on 19.6.2008. Thereafter, the present claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and the appellant – original claimant claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/. The insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.25. Issues are framed at Exh.19 and the oral evidence was adduced at Exh.29 and the documentary evidence as observed hereinabove was adduced before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the present claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and the appellant – original claimant claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/. The insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.25. Issues are framed at Exh.19 and the oral evidence was adduced at Exh.29 and the documentary evidence as observed hereinabove was adduced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the notional income of the appellant who was minor aged about 11 years on the date of the accident at Rs.15,000/-and also considered disability certificate which reveals that the injured has incurred disability of the body as a whole of 18% and also considered the purshis whereby the parties agreed for disability to the extent of 7% and granted compensation and applying 18 multiplier, granted compensation of Rs.18,900/-under the head of future loss of income and further awarded Rs.8,000/-under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.4,000/-under the head of special diet, attendant and transportation charges and Rs.3,000/-as medical expenses and thus, granted total compensation of Rs.33,900/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and partly allowed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant – original claimant has preferred this appeal. 4. Mr. Chetankumar Shah, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the appellant has proved that the appellant – injured was 11 years on the date of the accident. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited & Anr., AIR 2014 SC 736 , it was contended that as the disability even as per Exh.30 is to the extent of 7% of the body as a whole, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1 lac as compensation. The learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the in facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant – injured had to undergo hospitalization and therefore, would be entitled to further amount of Rs.10,000/-under the head of discomfort and inconvenience. On the aforesaid two grounds, it was contended that the appeal be allowed as prayed for and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 5. Per contra, Mr. P.P. Lakhani, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 – insurance Company has opposed this appeal. On the aforesaid two grounds, it was contended that the appeal be allowed as prayed for and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 5. Per contra, Mr. P.P. Lakhani, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 – insurance Company has opposed this appeal. It was contended that the appellant, though minor, would not be entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lac. It was contended that the judgment in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra) would not be applicable in the present case. It was also contended that the Tribunal has committed no error in awarding just compensation under all the heads and the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other or further contentions and/or submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. Upon considering the submissions made and on considering the copies of evidence which were adduced before the Tribunal, it is an admitted position that as per the school leaving certificate produced on record, the appellant was 11 years old on the date of the accident. Record indicates that the factum of accident is not denied. On the contrary, the Tribunal has noted that the appellant injured was the eyewitness. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun has observed thus: “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 up to 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; up to 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. 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. 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. The appellant, hence, would be entitled to get the compensation as follows: Head Compensation amount Pain, shock and suffering 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 Rs.3,00,000/- Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization Rs.25,000/- Medical and incidental expenses during the period of hospitalization for 58 days Rs.25,000/- Future medical expenses for correction of the mal union of fracture and incidental expenses for such treatment Rs.25,000/- TOTAL Rs.3,75,000/- 8. In facts of this case, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra) would be applicable and therefore, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/as compensation under the head of future loss of income even considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. However, the contention as regards discomfort and inconvenience deserves to be negatived in facts of this case. The facts in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra) were different; whereas, in the case on hand, such circumstances were not there and considering the disability as per the purshis at Exh.30, the appellant would not be entitled to any amount under the head of discomfort and inconvenience. As far as special diet and medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has granted Rs.4,000/-and Rs.3,000/ respectively in facts of this case deserves to be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-each. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.33,900/, the appellant would be entitled to additional amount of Rs.76,100/with 9% interest per annum and proportionate costs from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount with interest as provided in this judgment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.