JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals by the Claimants lay a challenge to the judgment and awards dated 09.07.2012 made by the MACTIV, Mangaluru, allowing M.V.C.No.617/2008 of the 1st appellant and M.V.C.No.53/2009 of the 2nd minor appellant whereby, a compensation of Rs.3,46,200/- in the former and another compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- in the later, both with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum, have been awarded, subject to a usual condition of bank deposit. The challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. The brief facts stated are : (a) On 19.11.2007, accident involving rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Mahindra Pick up Van bearing Registration No.KA-19B-7998 happened; this resulted into both the appellant-Claimants sustaining grievous injuries. Their claim petitions in M.V.C.No.617/2008 and M.V.C.No.53/2009 were stoutly resisted by the Insurer by filing Written Statement. (b) To prove the claim, the Claimant in M.V.C.No.617/2008 Mr.Althaf TM was examined as PW.1; Dr.Ghanashyam Kamath who had treated the said Claimant, was examined as PW.2; the alleged employer of the said Claimant namely Dr.M.C. Sajith was examined as PW.3. Similarly, in M.V.C.No.53/2009, the natural father and minor guardian of the minor Claimant namely, Mr.Ibrahim was examined as PW.4 and Dr.Sudhakara who had treated the injured minor was examined as PW.5; Sister Petrina – a teacher in the school in which the minor Claimant was studying was examined as PW.6. From the Claimants side, totally 239 documents came to be marked as per Exhibits P1 to P239 which essentially consisted of Police Papers, IMV Report, Salary Certificate and Medical Records, amongst other. (c) From the side of the respondent/Insurer, its official by name Mr.Poovappa was examined as RW.1 and in his evidence, five documents came to be marked as per Exhibits R1 to R5 which consisted amongst other, of authorization letter and statements. 3. The MACT, after adverting to the pleadings of the parties and after duly appreciating the evidentiary material on record, has made the judgment and awards that are put in challenge by the Claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. 3. The MACT, after adverting to the pleadings of the parties and after duly appreciating the evidentiary material on record, has made the judgment and awards that are put in challenge by the Claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants arguing his case in M.F.A.No.11437/2012 submits: that the medical disability to the injured claimant was to the extent of 15 % to the right limb and 5 % to the whole body and therefore, the compensation ought to have been awarded under the Head ‘Loss of amenities’; that no compensation has been awarded under the Head ‘Loss of marital prospects’. The learned Panel counsel for the Insurer vehemently opposes the same saying that the compensation awarded already is in excess of entitlement; in fact, the excessive compensation is because of mindless award of amount under duplicated heads only with nomenclatural difference; and lastly, the Claimant having produced fabricated medical bills, is liable to be nonsuited in the appeal. 5. The contention of the Claimant that the compensation awarded is on the lower side, is not substantiated; on the contrary, the contention of the Insurer that even otherwise also, what has been awarded is in excess, is apparent; however, the Claimant cannot be worse off in their appeal and therefore, the relief is not granted to the respondent-Insurer. The other reason for dismissing the appeal is the culpable conduct of the Claimant in pressing into service the fabricated medical bills, which the MACT has taken note of at Para 21 of it’s impugned judgment. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the Claimant, arguing his appeal in M.F.A.No.346/2013 submits that the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.1,39,000/is too much on the meager side, regard being had to the dicta of the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396 . The learned Panel Counsel opposes any enhancement of the compensation stating that the MACT being an expert statutory adjudicatory body, has employed its accumulated wisdom in recording the findings which this Court should show due deference to. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Claimants and the learned counsel for the Insurer. The learned Panel Counsel opposes any enhancement of the compensation stating that the MACT being an expert statutory adjudicatory body, has employed its accumulated wisdom in recording the findings which this Court should show due deference to. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Claimants and the learned counsel for the Insurer. The version of the Claimants that the compensation awarded is short of entitlement is substantiated by the observation of the Apex Court in Para 12 of its judgment in the case supra. The said paragraph reads as under: “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 Rs.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick.” 8. Keeping in view the above dicta of the Apex Court, the compensation has to be enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/under the Head “Pain and Suffering & Loss of amenities in life”. However, in addition to this, the Claimant is entitled to retain another sum of Rs.99,000/which the MACT has awarded under the Head “Medical Expenses”. The Claimant is also entitled to another sum of Rs.50,000/by way of compensation since he has lost one precious academic year because of the accidental injury in question, which fact is in the deposition of Sister Petrina who was examined as PW.6 before the MACT. 9. The Claimant is also entitled to another sum of Rs.50,000/by way of compensation since he has lost one precious academic year because of the accidental injury in question, which fact is in the deposition of Sister Petrina who was examined as PW.6 before the MACT. 9. With the altered figures, the compensation is reworked out as under: Pain and Suffering, Loss of amenities in life Rs.3,00,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.99,000/- Compensation for having lost one precious academic year Rs.50,000/- Total 4,49,000/- In the above circumstances, the Claimant’s appeal in M.F.A.No.11437/2012 is dismissed and the minor Claimant’s appeal in M.F.A.No.346/2013 is partly favoured; the impugned judgment and award in M.V.C.No.53/2009 wherefrom M.F.A.No.346/2013 arises, are modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,39,000/- to Rs.4,49,000/- (Four Lakh and Forty Nine Thousand) only, with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum; all other terms and conditions thereof, having been left intact. The Registry to send back the LCR to the jurisdictional MACT, forthwith. Costs made easy.