JUDGMENT : 1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd is in appeal against the Award dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (for brevity “the Tribunal”) whereby the petitioner an injured in a Road Traffic Accident has been held entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,15,302/-. 2. The facts, in brief, which led to the filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal may be noticed. On 09.05.2013, a vehicular accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2 in which amongst others, the claimant also received serious injuries and got permanent disablement to the extent of 60%. She laid a claim for compensation before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.26,32,000 on account of loss of earning and other medical treatment and allied expenses etc. The claim petition was contested by the appellant herein only whereas respondents 2 and 3 despite service did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal has framed the following issues:— 1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries in road traffic accident, caused at Jawahar Nagar, Rajouri on 09.05.2013 as respondent No.1 was driving vehicle/Tata Magic No.JK11A/2115 in rash and negligent manner as a result of which vehicle bearing registration No.JK11A/2115 under its ambit? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence, of so, to what effect? OPR-3 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms of insurance policy and so insurance company, if so, to what effect? OPR-3 5. Relief ? 3. With a view to substantiate her claim, father of respondent No.1 besides examining himself also examined two other witnesses, namely, Mohd Riaz and Dr. Abdul Salam. There was, however, no evidence led by the appellant insurance company in rebuttal. On the basis of the evidence led before the Tribunal, issue No.1 was held proved in favour of the respondent No.1 and against the appellant. It was established that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2 in which amongst others, the petitioner, a minor, aged 6½ years had suffered serious injuries. On the basis of the evidence led before the Tribunal, issue No.1 was held proved in favour of the respondent No.1 and against the appellant. It was established that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.2 in which amongst others, the petitioner, a minor, aged 6½ years had suffered serious injuries. Similarly, due to failure on the part of the appellant-insurance company to discharge the onus of proving issues No. 3 and 4, the aforesaid issues too were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent No.1. The appellant could not prove by leading any evidence oral or documentary that respondent No.2 at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that therefore, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. 4. Issue No.2 which pertains to the quantum of compensation payable to the respondent No.1 was, accordingly, decided by the Tribunal and respondent No.1 was held entitled to compensation in the following manners:— 1. Future loss of income = Rs.4,00,000.00 2. Expenditure on medical and treatment = Rs.5302.00 3. Transport charges = Rs.5000.00 4. Special diet = Rs.5000.00 Total = Rs.4,15,302.00 5. The appellant is aggrieved of the award to the extent it awards Rs.4,15,302/- as compensation to the respondent No.1. It is claimed that the compensation awarded to respondent No.1 by the Tribunal is exorbitant and not in consonance with the law settled by the Supreme Court and this Court in number of judgments. The primary ground on which the impugned order has been assailed by the appellant is with regard to the manner in which the Tribunal has taken permanent disability of the whole body to the extent of 55%, though the doctor, who attended the injured has certified it to be 60% permanent disability of right upper limb. It is, thus, urged that the Tribunal without giving any reason or justification has treated the whole body disablement of respondent No.1 as 55% and has, accordingly, worked out the loss of earning capacity placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar v. Vijay Kumar ( 2011 ACJ 1 ). 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, I am of the view that the plea of the appellant insurance company is not wholly without substance. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, I am of the view that the plea of the appellant insurance company is not wholly without substance. The statement of Dr. Abdul Salam, who had issued disability certificate in favour of respondent No.1 is very categoric and he states that the permanent disability suffered by the respondent No.1 is 60% and pertains to right upper limb only. It would, therefore, be not justified to take the aforesaid disability of the right upper limb equivalent to the 55% disability of the whole body. It would be fair, in the facts and circumstances, to take the whole body disability of the respondent no.1 not more than 35% to 40%. But, in my humble opinion, it is not going to make any difference in so far as the payment of compensation on account of future loss of income is concerned. As per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Master Malikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014 AIR SC 736), in the case of permanent disability suffered by children, a lump sum payment of Rs.4,00,000 should be paid if the whole body disability is more than 30% and upto 60%. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- on account of future loss of income, which is in tune with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment. 7. In view of the above, it would be of no use to look to the guidelines laid down by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment vide its memo No.16-18/97-NI.J with regard to the working out the affect of different kind of disabilities. As stated above, even if the argument of learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is accepted in its entirety, still it would not result in any change in the award of compensation made by the Tribunal. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA(s).