JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2015 passed by learned Member MACT No. 2, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No. 366/2013 awarding compensation of Rs. 28,33,583/-only in favour of the claimant/respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 29.08.2012, minor son of the claimant while travelling in a vehicle bearing No. AS-14-3791(Tempo) from Chatemari towards Ghoga and when the said Tempo reached at Chatemari, under Mukalmua Police Station, the son of the claimant fell down from the said Tempo, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his person including head. The injured was immediately taken to GMCH, Guwahati. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sankerdev Netralaya, Beltola, Guwahati as well as Mechi Netralaya, Mechi Nagar, Nepal for his better treatment. At that time the injured was 12 years of age. Due to the alleged accident the injured has completely lost his vision and on examination doctor opined that he has become a permanent disable having 100% disability, i.e. blindness. As there is no dispute regarding injury of the minor Dip Ranjan Talukdar in a road traffic accident which occurred on 29.08.2012 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle AS-14-3791(Tempo) and liability for the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point remains for consideration in the appeal is- (a) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction or enhancement. 3. In the appeal, a specific ground was taken by the respondent insurance company relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited reported in [ (2014) 14 SCC 396 ], that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and therefore it is to be scaled down. 4. The nub of the learned counsels argument is that after the decision in Mallikarjun case (supra) computation of compensation in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for personal injuries of children in a motor vehicle accident causing permanent disability should be strictly adhering to the structure of compensation formulated therein. 5. 4. The nub of the learned counsels argument is that after the decision in Mallikarjun case (supra) computation of compensation in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for personal injuries of children in a motor vehicle accident causing permanent disability should be strictly adhering to the structure of compensation formulated therein. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has submitted that in an application filed for compensation the Court is required to ascertain the just compensation payable depending upon the evidence adduced by the parties. The Court can pass the award for compensation more than what has been claimed by the claimant in the claim application. The Court’s duty being to award just compensation. If the Appellate Court finds that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just, it can enhance the same and award the just compensation even in an appeal preferred by the owner or the insurer and even in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objections by the claimant. 6. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on some case laws:- a. (2019) 3 SCC 572 Union of India Vs. Rina Devi; b. 2021 SCC Online SC 1083 Meena Pawala and Others Vs. Ashraf Ali and Others; c. (2011) 1 SCC 343 Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar And Another. 7. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of ‘just compensation’ has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 8. In Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited (supra), a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Apex Court laid down the principles regarding payment of compensation for injuries sustained by children, resulting permanent disability. 8. In Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited (supra), a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Apex Court laid down the principles regarding payment of compensation for injuries sustained by children, resulting permanent disability. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that in the case of children suffering disability on account of motor accident, the appropriate compensation on all other heads in additional 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 and above 90 %, it should be Rs. 6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs. 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick. Paragraph 12 of the said decision reads thus:- 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 additional 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.3lakhs; up to 60%, Rs. 4 lakhs; up to 90 %, Rs. 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs. 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. 9. Evidently, the Hon’ble Apex Court prescribed the said structure of compensation with a view to bring uniformity in a socio-economic issue. Though such decisions on socio-economic issues would be revisited by the Hon’ble Apex Court such a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to bring uniformity on a socio-economic issue would be having precedental value and that position is well-nigh settled. 10. Though such decisions on socio-economic issues would be revisited by the Hon’ble Apex Court such a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to bring uniformity on a socio-economic issue would be having precedental value and that position is well-nigh settled. 10. In the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh ( 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC))wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 additional 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 and above 90%, it should be Rs. 6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs. 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.” 11. Therefore, in respect of cases falling under the aforesaid category viz., claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for personal injuries sustained by children in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in permanent disability the decision in Mallikarjun’s case (supra) must have the value of a precedent in the matter of computing compensation. But, at the same time, no argument is necessary to conclude that in exceptional circumstances a different yardstick could be adopted. 12. In the instant case, the age of the injured is around 12-13 years at the relevant time of accident. He was a school going boy. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AS-14-3791(Tempo), he sustained injury on his head. As a result, he lost his complete vision. He has become permanent disable having 100% disability as opined by the doctor. 13. In the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 ) the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:- “Thereafter, S.168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to “make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just”. Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. 13. In the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 ) the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:- “Thereafter, S.168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to “make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just”. Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” 14. The said principle laid down in Nagappa’s case (supra) was restated in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd Nasir & Anr. (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1619) and in Nigamma & Anr. v. United Indian Insurance Company limited( (2009) 13 SCC 710 ). Taking into account the said three decisions the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh ( 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)) that the underlying principle discussed in the said three decisions is with respect to the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation and it had now become trite law that the Court should not succumb to niceties and technicalities, in its endeavour to grant just compensation. 15. In R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal reported in ( (2009) 14 SCC 1 ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:- “Undoubtedly, the compensation in law is paid to restore the person, who has suffered damage or loss in the same position, if the tortuous act or the breach of contract had not been committed. The law requires that the party suffering should be put in the same position, if the contract had been performed or the wrong had not been committed. The law in all such matters requires payment of adequate, reasonable and just monetary compensation. 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 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. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he 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. However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life, Loss of life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply- pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that payment should also be made for non-pecuniary losses on account of loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life, etc. The Act provides for payment of “just compensation” vide Sections 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be “just compensation” in the facts of a case.” 16. In the case in hand, I have already stated that due to the alleged accident the minor boy Dip Ranjan Talukdar has lost his complete vision. He was a school going children. Learned Tribunal has assessed his income Rs. 5000/- X 12 + 50% future prospect and multiplier of 15 and on the head of disability the compensation was given as Rs. 13,50,000/- but as per Mallikarjun’s case (supra) as I have discussed aforesaid Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the guidelines how to calculate the compensation in case of children who had suffered injury due to motor vehicle accident having permanent disability. 17. In the instant case, as the injured has 100% disability, the compensation on the head of disability will come into Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs). As such, on the head of disability the compensation is fixed at Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs). Assessing the compensation on some other heads fixed by the Tribunal is upheld which reads as follows- a) conveyance, nourishing food and the ground of grievous injuries Rs. 1,50,000/- b) Loss of education Rs. 1,00,000/- c) Loss of expectation of life Rs.1,00,000/- d) Future treatment Rs. 2,00,000/- e) Attendant charge Rs. 1,00,000/- f) Loss of amenities Rs. 1,50,000/- g) Travelling expenses Rs. 50,000/- h). Loss of marriage & discomfort (prospects) Rs. 2,00,000/- i) Loss of pain & sufferings etc. Rs.2,00,000/- j) Medical expenditure Rs. 2,33,583/- 18. 1,50,000/- b) Loss of education Rs. 1,00,000/- c) Loss of expectation of life Rs.1,00,000/- d) Future treatment Rs. 2,00,000/- e) Attendant charge Rs. 1,00,000/- f) Loss of amenities Rs. 1,50,000/- g) Travelling expenses Rs. 50,000/- h). Loss of marriage & discomfort (prospects) Rs. 2,00,000/- i) Loss of pain & sufferings etc. Rs.2,00,000/- j) Medical expenditure Rs. 2,33,583/- 18. Hence, the claimant is entitled to get the amount of compensation on different heads as aforesaid amounting to -Rs. 20,83,583/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Eighty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Three) only. 19. In the result, appeal is partly allowed with aforesaid modification awarding Rs. 20,83,583/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Eighty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Three) only with interest thereon @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the case till full and final realization. The National Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation in the savings account of the claimant Mahendra Talukdar through NEFT. Claimant is directed to furnish his bank details of any nationalized bank to the Insurance Company for necessary payment. 20. Any amount paid earlier be adjusted accordingly. 21. Statutory amount in deposit be returned. 22. Send down LCR.