JUDGMENT M.Nagaprasanna, J. - This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Fast Tract Court, Sirsi in M.V.C.No.118/2008. 3. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 08.04.2007, the claimant who was a minor at the time of the accident along with his father was on his way to Dasanakoppa village. At about 10.30 a.m., when they came near Dasanakoppa bus stand, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-27/L-6900 riding it in a rash and negligent manner dashed into the minor claimant. due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and had to immediately admitted to P.G.Hospital, Sirsi where the leg was operated and steel rod has been inserted in the right thigh. 5. The claimant, claiming to have spent huge sums of money towards medical expenses on account of the injuries sustained in the accident filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest. 6. On service of notice, respondent-Insurance Company appeared and filed statement of objections and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the minor. It was contended that the Tribunal should consider contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked 143 documents namely Exs.P1 to P143. On the other hand, Insurance Company though did not examine any witnesses, but marked insurance policy as Ex.R1. 9. 8. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked 143 documents namely Exs.P1 to P143. On the other hand, Insurance Company though did not examine any witnesses, but marked insurance policy as Ex.R1. 9. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries and further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of 92,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 10. I have heard Sri.A.A.Savanur, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri.S.S.Yadrami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation for the injuries of a minor whose life was jeopardized due to the injuries sustained in the accident and would seek its enhancement. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would vehemently contend and submit with regard to the disability and compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He submits that the doctor has assessed disability at 35% with respect to the right lower limb which itself is on the higher as he was not the doctor who treated the claimant, but a doctor who only issued the disability certificate. He further submits that disability ought to be reduced in the facts and circumstances of the case. Insofar as award of compensation is concerned, he would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and any enhancement of compensation would turn it into a profit to the claimant, in the light of the fact that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident and the Tribunal has ignored the fact of attribution of contributory negligence on the part of the injured claimant. But the fact remains that they have not preferred any appeal against the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. The injured as on the date of the accident was a minor. The disability assessed by the doctor is not the treated doctor. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. The injured as on the date of the accident was a minor. The disability assessed by the doctor is not the treated doctor. Ex.P119 is the disability certificate issued by the doctor. The doctor in the certificate clearly opines that disability is 35% with respect to right lower limb and the movement of right thigh and knee is restricted by 25%, and the movement of right knee is restricted by 40% and shortening of right lower limb by 2cm. The doctor who issued the disability certificate was also examined, the Tribunal has grossly erred in not considering any disability due to the accident in favour of the claimant. Though the doctor was not treated doctor, with regard to disability of 35%, it ought to have been reduced by 1/3rd and the disability should have been assessed at 12% in the least by the Tribunal. Hence, I deem it appropriate to hold that disability of the claimant is at 12%. 15. The issue of a minor becoming injured due to road accident and the adequate compensation to be awarded for particular percentage of disability is considered by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case Master Mallikarjun Vs Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited & Another, (2014) AIR SC 736 wherein the Hon ble Apex Court in paragraph 12 held as follows: 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 up to 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs.5 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents. Emphasis supplied 16. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents. Emphasis supplied 16. In terms of the aforesaid extracted judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, if the disability is between 10% to 30%, the injured minor would be entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs.75,000/- on other heads apart from the actual medial expenses and loss of education. 17. Hence, I deem it appropriate to modify and award following compensation in terms of Master Mallikarjun (supra). Sl.No. Head Amount (Rs) 1 Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. 3,00,000 2 Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization. 25,000 3 Medial and incidental expenses during the period of hospitalization 25,000 4 Future medical expenses for correction of the mal union of fracture and incidental expenses 25,000 5 Actual medical expenses 30,500 6 Conveyance, dietary and attendant charges 25,000 7 Loss of academic year 22,000 Total 4,52,500 18. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,52,500/- as against Rs.92,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its satisfaction by the Insurance Company. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.