JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in MCOP.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Tirunelveli, dated 30.11.2010.) 1. Against the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, the injured minor claimant has filed this appeal through his father. 2. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that 02.12.2006, while he was travelling along with his father in a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-72-E-7938 on Tirunelveli-Tiruchendur main road, near Bell Hospital at Samathanapuram, a Bajaj Delivery Van bearing registration No.TN-72-AB-5094 belonging to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the appellant fell down from the motorcycle and sustained fracture over left hand and multiple injuries all over the body. He filed a claim petition through his father claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The appellant resisted the claim by filing counter. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, dismissed the claim petition, against which, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, 2nd respondent and perused the records. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent did not appear. 4. Perusal of record shows that father of the appellant examined himself as PW1. He would state that on 02.12.2006, when he along with the appellant/son were proceeding in a motorcycle on Tirunelveli-Tiruchendur main road, the above Bajaj Delivery Van hit the motorcycle, due to which, they were thrown out from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. The father of the appellant lodged Ex.P1-FIR against the driver of the Bajaj Delivery Van. On behalf of the 2nd respondent insurance company, Head Constable working in Tirunelveli Transport Investigation Wing, was examined as RW1. He would state that one Jeyaprakash, Inspector of Police filed FIR in this case, in which, the complainant has stated that a Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No.TN-59-AP-5094 hit the motorcycle and he has not stated the driver's name of the vehicle and that the said vehicle was not sent for the inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He would state that one Jeyaprakash, Inspector of Police filed FIR in this case, in which, the complainant has stated that a Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No.TN-59-AP-5094 hit the motorcycle and he has not stated the driver's name of the vehicle and that the said vehicle was not sent for the inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He would further state that the involvement of the Van in the accident and the details of the driver of the Van at the time of accident, could not be found out from the investigation. The investigating officer of the 2nd respondent insurance company was examined as RW2 who would state that Bajaj Delivery Van was insured with them and at the time of accident, insurance policy was in force and since charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated time, the FIR was closed. As per the investigation report of RW2, the driver of the 1st respondent Van was not the cause for accident and the motorcycle which carried three persons, was the cause for the accident. RW2 has marked Ex.R1-insurance policy of Bajaj Delivery Van and Ex.R2-Investigation Report. A Junior Assistant from the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tenkasi, was examined as RW3 who would state that as per the Registration Certificate of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-72-E-7938, two persons can travel and without the licence number, it cannot be found out from the RTO office as to whether the rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident namely, Rajapandi @ Sudalaimuthu had possessed valid driving licence to drive the aforesaid motorcycle. 5. Perusal of record further shows that the Tribunal rejected the version of RW2-Investigator that the rider of the motorcycle Rajapandi did not have the driving licence, holding that it is not known on what basis RW2 arrived at such conclusion and no explanation was offered in this regard. Further, RW3 also stated that without the licence number, he cannot say whether at the time of accident, the rider of the motorcycle had valid driving licence or not and therefore, the Tribunal also rejected the version of RW3 in this regard. Further, RW3 also stated that without the licence number, he cannot say whether at the time of accident, the rider of the motorcycle had valid driving licence or not and therefore, the Tribunal also rejected the version of RW3 in this regard. Though the Tribunal found from the evidence of RW2- Investigator of the insurance company that Bajaj Delivery Van bearing registration No.TN-72-AP-5094 is belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent company, it dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claimant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove that Bajaj Delivery Van bearing registration No.TN-72-AP-5094 was involved in the accident and it belongs to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company. The Tribunal also held that neither in the claim petition, nor in the chief examination, the claimant has stated that the said Bajaj Delivery Van caused the accident and further, the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and charge sheet have not been produced. 6. In my considered opinion, the said findings are erroneous. The claimant at clauses 14, 15, 16 and 169(a) of the claim petition itself, has averred the registration number, names of owner, driver and their addresses and insurer of the Bajaj Delivery Van and also specifically averred that the said Van hit the motorcycle. Perusal of the evidence of RW1-Head Constable, shows that since FIR was pending for long time, it was closed and that the investigation did not reveal the involvement of the Bajaj Delivery Van in the accident and the details of its driver. The evidence of RW1 itself shows that for the reasons best known to the Police investigation was not done in proper manner and RW2 himself admitted that the Van belonging to the 1st respondent was insured with them. There is no delay in lodging FIR which was filed on the next day of the accident. The evidence of PW1 as to the manner of accident is corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR. Mere wrong mentioning of registration number and name of vehicle and non mentioning of driver name in the FIR cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of claimant as it is well settled that FIR is not an encyclopedia. The evidence of PW1 as to the manner of accident is corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR. Mere wrong mentioning of registration number and name of vehicle and non mentioning of driver name in the FIR cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of claimant as it is well settled that FIR is not an encyclopedia. It can be relied on, for the purpose of setting the criminal law in motion, and all that is stated in the FIR, cannot be said to be the facts admitted, and if there is any omission in the FIR to state any fact, it does not mean that evidence cannot be adduced, either at the time of investigation, by the Police, for laying a charge against the accused or pleaded in the claim petitions, when compensation is claimed. 7. As stated earlier, the claimant has mentioned the names of the owner and driver of the Bajaj Delivery Van and their addresses which the 2nd respondent did not dispute before the Tribunal. Just because, the investigation did not reveal the involvement of Bajaj Delivery Van in the accident and its driver, it cannot be said that the driver of the said vehicle was not at fault as in claims cases, the test to arrive at negligence is preponderance of probability and not strict proof of evidence as required in criminal case. The Tribunal on erroneous appreciation of evidence, dismissed the claim petition. The claimant proved manner of accident by his version which is corroborated by Ex.P1-FIR. The evidence on the side of the insurance company, is not supported by any other evidence nor documents. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Bajaj Delivery Van insured with the 2nd respondent. Consequently, this Court holds that the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation and the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the appellant. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the appellant that he sustained following injuries:- (1) Fracture over the left hand (2) A lacerated wound over the right hand dorsum (3) Swelling over the left elbow (4) Abrasion over the inner aspect of the upper lip (5) Multiple injuries all over the body. 9. 8. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the appellant that he sustained following injuries:- (1) Fracture over the left hand (2) A lacerated wound over the right hand dorsum (3) Swelling over the left elbow (4) Abrasion over the inner aspect of the upper lip (5) Multiple injuries all over the body. 9. As regards the injuries, the claimant examined the Doctor from Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital as PW3, who would state that with reference to medical records, he examined the appellant and found that there was fracture of lower end of the left arm bone and upper end of the ulna bone and deformity and pain were present in left elbow and forearm and there was weakness and restriction of movements of left elbow and forearm. He assessed the partial permanent disability at 20% and issued Ex.P6-Disability Certificate. The claimant was aged 7 years at the time of accident and was a school going child. Therefore, even 20% disability would restrict him to some extent and he could not play freely like other children. Therefore, as per the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. G.Ramesh, reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 583, a sum of Rs.3,000/- is awarded for each percentage of disability and accordingly, Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards disability compensation. Due to fracture, the appellant would have experienced severe pain at the very young age. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment, a sum of Rs.5,000 and Rs. 10,000/- is awarded for transportation and extra nourishment. Altogether, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 85,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit under the following heads:- Disability compensation Rs.60,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/- Transportation Rs . 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- Total compensation Rs.85,000/- 10. The 2nd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.85,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of the claim petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- Total compensation Rs.85,000/- 10. The 2nd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.85,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of the claim petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant/claimant was 7 years old during 2009 when MCOP was filed and therefore, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest in a Nationalised Bank in Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant till he attains majority. Till such time, the father and guardian of appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest of the Fixed Deposit once in three months directly from the bank for the welfare of the appellant. On attainment of majority, it is for the appellant to move appropriate application before the Tribunal to discharge the guardianship and to withdraw the award amount. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs.