ORDER : Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the minor appellant in the accident occurred on 20.12.2010, the appellant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 2. Brief facts are that on 20.12.2010 at about 7.30 A.M., when the minor appellant was travelling in the 3rd respondent's van bearing registration No.TN-31 9788 on Chidambaram-Cuddalore road, the driver of the van stopped the van at Semmankuppam near Muniappar koil to board a girl into the van. At that time, the 1st respondent's van bearing registration No.TN-21 AV 0046 came in the opposite direction at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner without making horn, dashed against the appellant van. Due to the impact, the minor appellant sustained fractures and also multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was admitted in Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore where from she was taken to Pondicherry and admitted in PIMS Hospital for better treatment, where surgery was performed. Stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's van, the appellant has filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 3. Resisting the claim petition, the second respondent, insurer of the van bearing registration No.TN-21 AV 0046, filed counter stating that the accident was not happened due to rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent's vehicle's driver and in fact, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant travelled van. It is stated that at the time of accident the driver of the 1st respondent's van had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The second respondent also denied the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The fourth respondent who is the insurer of the van bearing registration No.TN-31 9788 has filed counter stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the van bearing registration No.TN-21 AV 0046. It is also stated that the driver of the 3rd respondent was not holding valid and effective valid driving licence at the time of accident. The fourth respondent denied the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. It is also stated that the driver of the 3rd respondent was not holding valid and effective valid driving licence at the time of accident. The fourth respondent denied the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Before the Tribunal, the mother of the minor appellant viz., Kanchana was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Kalaiventhan and Dr.Vijayanand Thambiah were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents 2 and 4. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence before it, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's van. Since there was no contravention that the 1st respondent's van was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy of the van stands in the name of 5th respondent and the driver of the 1st respondent's van having valid driving licence to drove the same, the Tribunal directed the respondents 1, 2 and 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The Tribunal, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,34,000/- payable with 8% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. Challenging the quantum, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal should have held that the disability is permanent and it should have taken 85% as permanent disability and not one-third. The Tribunal also erred in awarding a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- for the disability by taking Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. He would submit that the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method while awarding compensation for the injuries. Further, he would submit that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is inadequate and the same needs to be enhanced. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly in order and needs no interference. Thus, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. It is not necessary for this Court to narrate entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation. Thus, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. It is not necessary for this Court to narrate entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation. It is for the reason that these things are recorded in favour of the appellant and secondly, none of those findings are under challenge. Finding that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending van and insured with the second respondent in the name of the fifth respondent, the Tribunal directed the respondents 1, 3 and 5 jointly and severally liable to be pay compensation to the appellant. Since the appellant had proved that at the time of accident, the first respondent's van was insured with the second respondent insurance company and there was no contra evidence adduced on the side of the second respondent to show that the offending vehicle was not insured with the second respondent, this Court holds that the second respondent insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the appellant. 10. In the claim petition, the appellant states that at the time of accident she was aged 12 years and was studying in VII standard. In the accident, minor appellant suffered grievous injuries and permanently disabled. Since the appellant is minor, her mother was examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, P.W.1 deposed that in the accident, her daughter minor Nisha sustained fracture in right knee; fracture of left tibia; fracture mandible and blunt injury in abdomen and also bleeding in the head and nose. 11. In her evidence P.W.1 further deposed that on 27.12.2010, plastic surgery was performed for facial injury. From 9.2.2011 to 26.2.2011, her daughter was admitted as inpatient at Pondicherry PIMS Hospital for Subacute Intestinal obstructions. Again she was admitted in the same hospital as inpatient from 17.2.2011 to 21.2.2011 for abdominal pain and removal of external fixator of knee. P.W.1 further deposed that her daughter was again admitted as inpatient from 6.4.2011 to 14.5.2011. During the treatment as inpatient, on 11.5.2011 the inserted plates were removed by way of surgery. Due to fractures in the left leg and right knee, her daughter was not able to stand, walk and play as before. Further, her left leg was shortened and she was finding difficulty in walking. During the treatment as inpatient, on 11.5.2011 the inserted plates were removed by way of surgery. Due to fractures in the left leg and right knee, her daughter was not able to stand, walk and play as before. Further, her left leg was shortened and she was finding difficulty in walking. In order to prove the injuries sustained by the appellant and the treatment taken, the appellant has produced Ex.P3-discharge summary. 12. P.W.2-Doctor examined the minor appellant and issued Ex.P16 disability certificate assessing the disability as 30% for the dental fracture. The appellant also examined P.W.3-Doctor, who had examined the injured and assessed the disability as 55%. Ex.P18 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.3-Doctor. 13. To rebut the evidence of the appellant, the contesting respondents have not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal. In the absence of contra evidence, the Tribunal has taken the partial permanent disability of the appellant as 85% and awarded Rs.2,55,000/- towards disability by taking Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that since the appellant had sustained permanent disability at 85%, multiplier method has to be adopted for determining the compensation. This Court finds some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 15. As stated supra, in the accident, the minor appellant sustained fractures i.e., IV floating knee of right leg proximal 1/3rd fracture of left tibia, ENT, blunt injury abdomen and fracture mandible. On a perusal of medical records, it is seen that plastic surgery for facial injury was performed on 27.12.2010. On 11.5.2011, the implanted plates were removed. The medical records produced by the appellant would further reveal that from 20.12.2010 to 14.5.2011, the minor appellant had taken treatment at Pondicherry PIMS Hospital for the fracture and also other injuries sustained by her in the accident. 16. In the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (10) SCALE 298 , the accident resulted 70% permanent disablement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held the functional disability to be 70%. The loss of earning capacity was computed according to the multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- "The basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. The loss of earning capacity was computed according to the multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- "The basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation – is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand." 17. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (‘the Disabilities Act’ for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.” 18. The aforesaid observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), was reiterated in the case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC), by observing as under : “14. The aforesaid observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra), was reiterated in the case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC), by observing as under : “14. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 15. In our view, the principles of law laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.” 19. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active girl of 12 years has not only suffered fractures but will also be finding difficulty in walking because of shortening of left leg. No amount of compensation can restore a physical frame of the appellant. No amount of compensation can be said to be sufficient for such a loss but still a methodology is required to be applied for determination of compensation in such cases and there cannot be any rigid test which should be applied in all situation. 20. In cases of motor accidents the endeavour is to put the dependants/claimants in the pre-accidental position. Compensation in cases of motor accidents, as in other matters, is paid for reparation of damages. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he/she had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation in cases of motor accidents, as in other matters, is paid for reparation of damages. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he/she had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is therefore required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss i.e. future loss of income/dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. 21. As stated supra, since the appellant sustained fracture in her left leg and her left leg was shortened, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation for the injuries by taking Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability and it ought to have adopted multiplier method. It is the say of the appellant that due to shortening of her left leg, the working capacity of the appellant was affected. 22. While determining the quantum of compensation payable to victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, it would be appropriate to adopt multiplier method for loss of future earnings on account of disability. This is a fit case to apply multiplier method instead of granting Rs.3,000/- for per percentage of disability. 23. This Court feels that objective of the Motor Vehicles Act laying down a structured formula and utilizing the multiplier method is to bring about uniformity in the compensation amounts awarded by Courts. 24. In UPSRTC & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 , where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even in cases under Section 166 of the Act, the maximum multiplier to be applied is 18, which was an increase from the maximum value of 16 that was laid down earlier in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas ( 1994 (2) SCC 176 ). The cap of 18' as the maximum multiplier that may be applied in any case has been reiterated in Smt.Sarala Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 (2) TNMAC 1 as well. Hence this Court is of the view that irrespective of the mathematical progression in the Schedule, the maximum multiplier that may be applied is 18, even if the victim is below 15 years. Thus, in the present case, the multiplier to be applied for computing 'loss of future income' for the victim is 18. 25. Hence this Court is of the view that irrespective of the mathematical progression in the Schedule, the maximum multiplier that may be applied is 18, even if the victim is below 15 years. Thus, in the present case, the multiplier to be applied for computing 'loss of future income' for the victim is 18. 25. To compute the compensation, this Court will have to assume an annual income in this case, as the appellant did not work at the time of the accident, being only 12 years old. The Second Schedule specifies Rs.15,000/- per annum to be assumed as income in case of non-earning victims. However, this Court finds this sum wholly inadequate on the date of accident. Moreover, the appellant was a student who seemed to be set for a successful future, prior to the accident. No whisper that now the appellant was continuing her studies. Therefore, taking all contingencies, calamities and disadvantages that may have occurred in the appellant's normal future into account, to consider an annual income of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4,000/- per month) is reasonable. 26. As stated supra, P.Ws.2 and 3 who had examined the injured appellant assessed the disability as 30% and 55%, totally 85% and the same has been substantiated by the appellant by way of examining P.Ws.2 and 3. Taking the notional annual income of the deceased at Rs.48,000/- and adopting multiplier 18, as the appellant was aged below 15 years, the loss of earning is calculated at Rs.7,34,400/- (Rs.48,000 x 18 x 85/100). 27. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- for travel expenses and extra-nourishment. This Court is of the view that the amount of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- for travel expenses and extra-nourishment awarded by the Tribunal are very low. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment undergone by the minor appellant, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and similarly, the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for travel expenses and extra-nourishment is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 28. The Tribunal awarded Rs.33,735/- towards medical expenses. Since the said amount awarded by the Tribunal is based on Exs.P11 to P13, the same is maintained. 29. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transport charges. 28. The Tribunal awarded Rs.33,735/- towards medical expenses. Since the said amount awarded by the Tribunal is based on Exs.P11 to P13, the same is maintained. 29. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transport charges. Considering the period of treatment on various spells, it would be appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges and accordingly, Rs.15,000/- is awarded for transport charges. 30. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of marital life to the appellant. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant, who was an active girl of 12 years has not only suffered shortening of left leg but finds difficulty in walking due to shortening of her left leg. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, it would be appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marital life and accordingly, Rs.50,000/- is awarded for loss of marital life. 31. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards mental agony. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for mental and physical impairment, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, this Court is inclined to award Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. 32. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attender charges. As stated supra, the appellant had taken treatment from 20.12.2010 to 14.5.2011 at Pondicherry PIMS Hospital. Considering the period of treatment undergone by the appellant and also the fact that the appellant would have been taken care of by the attender during the period of treatment, this Court is inclined to award Rs.20,000/- towards attender charges. 33. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation of Rs.3,33,735/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,83,135/- as under: Heads Rs. Loss of earning power 7,34,400.00/- Pain and suffering 50,000.00/- Extra-nourishment 30,000.00/- Medical bills 33,735.00/- Loss of marital life 50,000.00/- Towards mental agony 50,000.00/- Attender charges 20,000.00/- Transport charges 15,000.00/- Total 9,83,135.00/- 34. In so far as rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition and the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal is on the higher side. In so far as rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition and the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal is on the higher side. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TNSCTC v. S.Rajapriya, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 2542, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 35. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with costs as under: (i) The award of the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.9,83,135/- from Rs.3,33,735/-. (ii) The award amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. (iii) The second respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) It is seen that at the time of filing claim petition as well as the appeal, the appellant was a minor and was represented by her mother as guardian. Now she would have attained majority. The appellant is directed to file appropriate petition before the Tribunal to declare her as major and after declaring her as major and after discharging her mother from guardianship, the appellant is permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation with accrued interest. (v) For the welfare of the appellant, the remaining 50% is directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank for a period of three years and the appellant is permitted to withdraw interest once in a year.