JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. 1. The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Chikodi Division (for short the Corporation) being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 14.08.2017 passed in M.V.C. No. 1068 of 2010 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T. Athani (for short the ‘Tribunal’) has filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 25.04.2010 the petitioner and his father visited to Mangasuli Mallayya Temple and after taking darshan while they were proceeding in the TATA Ace vehicle bearing No. KA-23/A-2088, father of the petitioner was driving the vehicle towards Jugal village in a moderate speed and when the vehicle was proceeding on Kagawad-Shiraguppi road at about 1.45 p.m. the driver of the NWKRTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-22/F-1612 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the TATA Ace thereby caused the accident. Due to the sudden impact petitioner sustained fracture in left leg, grievous injury to head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Dr. P.B. Magadum Hospital, Miraj wherein he took treatment as an indoor patient and has undergone operations for the injuries sustained and has incurred Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. At the time of accident, petitioner was aged about 6 years and was very active and intelligent. In view of the injuries sustained by him is unable to walk for long distance and also unable to sit by folding his legs. The minor claimant through his next friend claimed the compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- against the Corporation. 3. In pursuance of the notice respondent-Corporation appeared before the Tribunal through its counsel and filed objections contending that the petition is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is contended that the accident took place due to the negligent act of the father of the minor-petitioner himself who drove the TATA Ace vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without holding valid driving license and came in the way of Bus and caused the accident. He has denied the accident in question as described in the claim petition. He has denied the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and medical expenses incurred by him and prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the issues. He has denied the accident in question as described in the claim petition. He has denied the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and medical expenses incurred by him and prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the issues. In support of the claim petition, the petitioner got examined his next friendfather as PW-1 and also got examined the Doctor as PW-2 and got marked 32 documents. The respondent-MFA. Corporation has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. The learned member of the Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation amount of Rs. 4,08,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 5. The Corporation being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment has filed this appeal on the ground that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Ace and therefore, its owner and insurer are to be necessary parties. Further, the disability certificate goes to show that the petitioner has sustained 20% disability to the left foot and the Tribunal ought to have considered the 1/3rd of the said disability to the whole body. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation and respondent. 7. A short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant-Corporation has made out grounds to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal? 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered permanent disability of the petitioner at 1/3rd of the disability of 20% in respect of the particular limb and therefore, compensation awarded by considering the permanent disability is erroneous. 9. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Claimant submitted that on the basis of the evidence of PW-2 and disability certificate produced at Ex.P-31 the Tribunal has considered the permanent disability of the petitioner at 20% of the whole body and awarded the compensation based on the Judgment in the case of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. 9. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Claimant submitted that on the basis of the evidence of PW-2 and disability certificate produced at Ex.P-31 the Tribunal has considered the permanent disability of the petitioner at 20% of the whole body and awarded the compensation based on the Judgment in the case of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2013) ACJ 2445 considering the evidence of PW.-2 and the disability certificate and also considering the fact that the injured was minor aged about 6 years at the time of accident, it appears the Tribunal has properly considered the permanent disability of the petitioner at 20% of the whole body for awarding compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal on the basis of the Judgment in the Mallikarjun's case stated supra has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards disability. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 93,882/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the medical bills, prescriptions produced before it, the same needs no interference by this Court. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and hire of vehicle and Rs. 4,500/- towards attendance for a period of 30 days. The contention of the appellant-Corporation that compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded towards disability includes the compensation towards the pain and suffering also. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards discomfort, inconvenience, loss of earnings to the parents of the appellant during the period of hospitalization as awarded in the case stated supra. 10. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs. 4,500/- awarded towards attendant charges, being disallowed, the same are awarded under the said head. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 14,500/- under the head loss of earning to the parents during the period of treatment. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation awarded by the Tribunal and has to be affirmed. 11. The appeal filed by the Corporation is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 12. The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant-Corporation shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 13. It is further ordered that a sum of Rs. 11. The appeal filed by the Corporation is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 12. The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant-Corporation shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 13. It is further ordered that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be released to the next friend of the petitioner in order to meet his educational and medical expenses and the remaining amount of compensation with interest shall be invested in the fixed deposit in the name of the minor petitioner, till he attains the age of majority.