JUDGMENT : 1. Having suffered 90% of disability, having suffered amputation from above the knee of left leg, having suffered amputation of right foot, at the young age of two years, having been granted a compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, the minor child, Kum. Laxmi, has challenged the award dated 03.01.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (SCCH-10). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 14.08.2012, around 7:30 p.m., the appellant was walking on the correct side of Kudlu Main Road, in order to reach her father’s shop located in front of Shubhalxmi Complex. Suddenly, an Eicher Canter, bearing registration No.KA-01/AA-2238, being driven rashly and negligently dashed against the child. Consequently, the child fell down. The lorry ran over her legs. Immediately, she was rushed to the Sparsh Hospital at Bengaluru. During the course of her treatment, both the left leg, and the right foot were amputated, as mentioned above. Having recovered from her injuries, the appellant-child filed a claim petition through her father before the learned Tribunal. In order to establish her case, she examined three witnesses, and submitted twenty documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 3. Mr. T. Parameshwarappa, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court: Firstly, the appellant was hospitalized on 14.08.2012, and was not discharged till 01.09.2012. During this period, her one leg and one foot were amputated; debridement was done on 14.08.2012. Subsequently, she had to undergo soft tissue cover surgery on 18.08.2012. She was eventually discharged on 01.09.2012. The amputation of a leg and a foot was a traumatic experience for the child. The trauma is not only limited to the period of recovery, but also continues for the rest of her life. Yet, for the category of “pain and suffering”, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of merely Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the said amount is rather miserly. The trauma is not only limited to the period of recovery, but also continues for the rest of her life. Yet, for the category of “pain and suffering”, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of merely Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the said amount is rather miserly. For, considering that the life expectancy today is 77 years, a grant of merely Rs.2,00,000/- “for the pain and suffering” the injured would continue to suffer for the next 75 years is too little. Secondly, generally, the life of a girl child is a difficult one. The difficulty is further aggravated by the fact that the girl child has suffered amputation of a leg and of a foot. Most importantly, the chance of her getting married, in her adulthood, is practically nil. For, ordinarily it would be difficult to find a husband for a woman who is physically challenged. Despite the fact that the prospect of marriage is almost nonexistent, the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs.2,00,000/- for the category of “loss of prospects of marriage and disfiguration”. Lastly, a young child who has suffered disfiguration of the body, she has lost most of the amenities that a normal child would have enjoyed during her childhood. She would continue to suffer loss of amenities during her adult life, as well. For, the life of a physically challenged woman is full of agony and sorrow, full of difficulties and problems, full of frustration and depression. Yet, the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs.50,000/for “the loss of amenities”. Relying on the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANTOHER [ILR 2013 KAR 4891], the learned counsel has emphasized that the case of a child has to be treated differently from the case of an adult who has suffered injuries in an accident. For, while the adult has the maturity to understand the difficulties of a life, the child is too immature to realize the extent of problems created by the accident, and may not be in a position to deal with life as now given by fate. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal should have shown more sensitive approach while granting the compensation to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal should have shown more sensitive approach while granting the compensation to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok N. Patil, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has pleaded that an award is not meant to be a bonanza. Besides the pecuniary benefit of grant of Rs.9,00,000/- for the “medical expenses” incurred by the appellant, and for her “future medical needs”, the learned Tribunal has already granted Rs.7,00,000/- for the non-pecuniary categories. Relying on the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN (supra), the learned counsel has pleaded that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had prescribed that in case of 90% of physical disability suffered by a child, the child would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. According to the learned counsel, the child has already been granted Rs.7,00,000/-. Therefore, the award is more than just and reasonable. Hence, according to the learned counsel the award should not be disturbed by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award, and considered the case law cited at the Bar. 6. Undoubtedly, the Motor Vehicles Act is a social benevolent piece of legislation. It caters to the needs of a claimant. Since the learned Tribunal implements a social benevolent piece of legislation, the learned Tribunal should be sensitive to the needs of the victim of an accident. For, the needs of a victim cannot be buried by adopting a pedantic approach. Instead of seeing the plight of the victim from a myopic vision, from an hyper technical view, from the confines of case law precedents, a holistic approach needs to be adopted. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is required to also consider the social status of the victim, financial background of the family, and the gender of the victim. In order to appreciate the socioeconomic context in which the victim exists, a larger vision needs to be utilized by the learned Tribunal. 7. In the present case, while dealing with the accident suffered by the appellant, the learned Tribunal should have been well aware of the position of a girl child in our society. It is an open secret that a girl child is born with certain social and financial handicaps, which are imposed upon the girl child not due to her own faults, but due to the patriarchal attitude our society suffers from. It is an open secret that a girl child is born with certain social and financial handicaps, which are imposed upon the girl child not due to her own faults, but due to the patriarchal attitude our society suffers from. The social biases, the social prejudices question the very existence of a girl child. Therefore, life of a girl, or of a woman, is not only fraught with difficulties, but is also fraught with unspoken and unrecognized dangers. 8. The object of compensating a person is not just to fulfill the financial crisis faced by a person, but most importantly to restore the sense of dignity that a person has lost due to the unfortunate accident. The grant of compensation is certainly not a charity being done by the learned Tribunal. It is a constitutional duty performed by the learned Tribunal to ensure that the dignity of the individual, a constitutional goal, is duly achieved. Therefore, grant of compensation has to be performed while keeping in mind the constitutional philosophy of socioeconomic justice, of equality of gender, and the dignity of an individual. By no means, the grant of compensation is a ceremonial exercise to be performed by the Tribunal. It is the concretization of the constitutional vision of justice. Therefore, while granting compensation, a larger legal vision has to be borne in mind by the learned tribunal. 9. As mentioned earlier, the present case revolves around a two years old infant, who certainly finds one leg and one foot missing. Despite the fact that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of about twenty days, but her pain and suffering did not stop immediately after her discharge from the hospital. As pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN (supra), the pain and suffering is not only confined to the period of recovery, but also extends to the pain and suffering an injured would undergo for the rest of his or her life. Presently, an average life span of a person in our country is 77 years. Thus, on an average, the appellant has to undergo 75 more years on of pain and suffering. Yet, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of merely Rs.2,00,000/- in order to ameliorate the pain and suffering, which the appellant would have to sustain for the rest of her life. Thus, on an average, the appellant has to undergo 75 more years on of pain and suffering. Yet, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of merely Rs.2,00,000/- in order to ameliorate the pain and suffering, which the appellant would have to sustain for the rest of her life. Therefore, this Court enhances the compensation in the category of “pain and suffering” from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. 10. Performing marriage of a physically challenged person, in a conservative society like ours, is almost an impossible task. Moreover, the status of a physically challenged is further aggravated by the fact that the person is seen more as a financial burden, and an emotional trauma upon the family. Ordinarily the physically challenged person is not only ridiculed, but is also neglected by the family. Such a person is neither wholly accepted, nor wholly rejected by the family and the society. The problem of a physically challenged person is further aggravated by gender discrimination. In the present case, the prospect of appellant getting married is practically zero. It would only be a miracle if the appellant still finds a spouse in her life. Therefore, she would continue to exist as a spinster; she will continue to be a burden upon her family. Considering the fact that she comes from lower status of the society, as her father is a petty store owner, chances of the appellant even getting educated are rather slim. The lack of education may also endanger the possibility of appellant getting married. Thus, as far as marriage prospect is concerned, the appellant seems to face a bleak future. Moreover, she is a child with physical disfiguration due to the accident undergone by her. Yet, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of merely Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant. Considering the hardship that the appellant will face in getting married, and in regaining the pristine condition of her life, the compensation of merely Rs.2,00,000/- is rather unreasonable and unjust. Therefore, this Court enhances the compensation in the category of “loss of marriage prospects and disfiguration” from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. 11. Needless to say, the childhood is not only full of innocence and joy, but also continues to be a memorable period of one's life. But a child who has lost one leg and one foot cannot even enjoy the joys of daily activities. 11. Needless to say, the childhood is not only full of innocence and joy, but also continues to be a memorable period of one's life. But a child who has lost one leg and one foot cannot even enjoy the joys of daily activities. Once the child grows up into an adolescent, and even into an adult, joys of life would continue to elude her. The sense of agony, frustration, depression generally haunts the existence of a person who is physically disfigured, and psychologically shattered. A life that was meant to be joyous, suddenly turns into a burden; a life which was meant to be a dream, suddenly turns into a nightmare; a life that was meant to be meaningful, suddenly turns into an empty existence. Yet, the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs.50,000/- for “the loss of amenities”. Therefore, this Court enhances the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. 12. This Court is aware of the fact that even a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- cannot bring back the joys of childhood, or the enjoyment of life. But, this Court is of the firm opinion that sufficient amount of compensation should be given to restore the sense of fairness, justice, and dignity in a child who seems to have lost joys of her physical ability, and almost all of her hopes. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has emphasized on the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN (supra), to plead that Rs.16,50,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal is more generous than what is required under the facts and circumstances of this case. However, repeatedly the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed that a judgment is not to be read as a provision of law. Each case has to be appreciated in its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Therefore, even the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN (supra), cannot be held to prescribe a universal principle to be applied ipsofactoin every case of a child meeting with an accident. As mentioned above, and as also opined in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN (supra), the case of a child stands on a different footing. Moreover, with the efflux of time both the Society, and the Courts of law have become more sensitive to the needs and rights of the children. Furthermore, life of a child coming from a lower status of the society becomes more aggravated with the efflux of time. Moreover, with the efflux of time both the Society, and the Courts of law have become more sensitive to the needs and rights of the children. Furthermore, life of a child coming from a lower status of the society becomes more aggravated with the efflux of time. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the Apex Court in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN (supra), cannot be held to bind the discretion of the Court. This Court is also required to appreciate the facts of each case on individual basis. The judgment in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN (supra), cannot be used in a carte blanche manner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves a more liberal compensation than the one granted by the learned Tribunal. 13. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is hereby allowed. The award dated 03.01.2014, is modified as under: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Pain and Suffering 2,00,000/- 5,00,000/- Medical expenses, conveyance and attendant charges 4,00,000/- 4,00,000/- Loss of Prospects of marriage and disfiguration 2,00,000/- 5,00,000/- Permanent physical disability 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Loss of expectation of life 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities 50,000/- 10,00,000/- Future medical expenses to fix Artificial limbs 5,00,000/- 5,00,000/- Total 16,50,000/- 32,00,000/- The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of three weeks along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse 50% of the compensation to the appellant’s father, after verifying his identity. Remaining 50% of the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of one year to be renewed yearly till the appellant reaches the age of majority. Once having reached the age of majority, the claimant shall be free to request the learned Tribunal to release the said amount in her favour.