ORDER : 1. The challenge has been given to the judgment and award dated 03.02.2022 in MACP No.390 of 2004 on the grounds that the minor sustained permanent disability in the accident, which occurred on 12.12.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Indica Car bearing Registration No.GJ-12-J-5670, and the learned Tribunal though had followed the judgment of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in [ (2014) 14 SCC 396 ], but had failed to grant the amount under the head of medical expenses, though relevant documents were produced on record to prove the medical bills, and further Doctor was examined to prove the disability. 2. Mr. Bharat B.Shah, learned advocate along with Advocate Mr. Darshan Dave for the appellant submitted that, considering the permanent disability of 35% following the yardstick laid down in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another (supra), the Tribunal has accordingly granted Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellant for non-pecuniary damages. Mr. Shah submitted that Tribunal ought to have granted the amount as per medical expenses, which were produced at Mark 19/11 and 19/12 A and B. 2.1 Relying on the said judgment of Mallikarjun (supra), Mr. Shah submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have granted amount under the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization; and further submits that, taking into consideration the period of hospitalization the learned Tribunal has not granted amount accordingly for special diet and transportation. 3. Countering the argument, Ms. E.Shailaja for the Insurance Company submitted that, the medical bills were not proved in accordance with law, and for the said medical evidence, photo copies of which were relied upon, while by order below Exhibit-39, the Tribunal had permitted the exhibits of the original. The claimant failed to bring on record the original medical bills of Sal Hospital nor any authority from Sal Hospital were summoned to prove the photo copies on record, and since the documents could not be proved, the learned Tribunal has rightly not considered the same. Ms. Shailaja further submitted that the period of hospitalization was 12 days, hence the amount so granted under the head of attendant, special diet and transportation is just and proper; thus submitted that the observation in the judgment need no interference by this Court. 4. Ms. Shailaja further submitted that the period of hospitalization was 12 days, hence the amount so granted under the head of attendant, special diet and transportation is just and proper; thus submitted that the observation in the judgment need no interference by this Court. 4. Taking into consideration the permanent disability of 35%, Rs.4,00,000/- has been granted under the head of non-pecuniary damages, which is in accordance with the yardstick laid down in the case of Mallikarjun (supra). 5. The claimants have produced through Exh.19, relevant documents, wherein mark 19/11 and 19/12 (A) and (B), are the photo copies of the medical bills and accordingly, the total medical expense was shown as Rs.46,788.50 paise and Rs.26,400/- respectively; however, the claimants failed to prove the original. The learned Tribunal while considering the application Exh.39 of the claimants, which was with the prayer to mark those documents and consider it as an exhibit, the learned Tribunal had ordered to exhibit all the original documents; however, since the medical bills were only photo copies of the computer generated bills, they could not be put in evidence and the learned Tribunal has not considered and not relied upon the same. 6. In cross-examination, the father of the claimant minor was questioned about the medical documents at exhibit-53 about the original bills and he had denied the suggestion of his son having medi-claim and further denied the suggestion that his son as is having medi-claim, the original papers of the medical bills had not been brought on record. The claimants were required to prove the original documents for compensation. It has been submitted by Advocate Mr. Shah that originally Advocate Mr. H.P. Bhatt for the complainant was appearing and the originals were with him and since his demise during the pendency of the matter, the original could not be brought on record; however, this fact has not been noted in the examination-in-chief of the applicant to lay a ground for proving the secondary evidence. The medical bills have not been proved on record; hence, this Court cannot consider the photo copies of the medical bills to admit them at this stage in appeal. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- lumpsum under the head of medical expense, which in the circumstances is just and proper. 7. The medical bills have not been proved on record; hence, this Court cannot consider the photo copies of the medical bills to admit them at this stage in appeal. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- lumpsum under the head of medical expense, which in the circumstances is just and proper. 7. Doctor Vijay Ratilal Sheth was examined to prove the disability certificate and accordingly the learned Tribunal has granted the amount, as per the evidence, as Rs.4,20,000/-. 8. The minor claimant was hospitalized for about 12 days and there was follow up treatment. The parents were required to attain the minor and for that there would have been a loss of their income and they must have expended for transportation and on diet. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- under the head of attendance, special diet and transportation expenses. It appears that the amount so granted is less. In the case of Mallikarjun (supra), under the head of discomfort, inconvenience, and loss of earning to the parents during the period of hospitalization Rs.25,000/- has been granted, considering the hospitalization of 58 days. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- under the head of attendant, special diet and transportation expense, the said head is required to be bifurcated as of special diet and transportation expense and discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization. Taking into consideration the permanent disability, period of hospitalization and the follow up and since the father of the claimant was running a garage and mother being a house wife, this Court considers to grant Rs.10,000/- under the said head of loss of earning, dis-comfort and inconvenience to the parents during the period of hospitalization. 9. Further, taking into consideration the period of hospitalization and the need for special diet and transportation and as the claimant being minor, this Court consider that Rs.5,000/- is required to be granted under the head of special diet and transportation expense. 10. Mr. Shah along with Mr. Dave had also prayed for increase in the rate of interest as of 9%; against that Ms. 10. Mr. Shah along with Mr. Dave had also prayed for increase in the rate of interest as of 9%; against that Ms. Shailaja submitted that 7.5% interest has been given to all the claimants at the relevant time whose matters were heard by the Tribunal; hence, the said rate of interest was applied to all the matters uniformly, and submitted that, no cause has been shown for increasing the rate of interest, since the rate of interest would be those applicable in the current period. Considering the submission, this Court does not find any reason to increase the rate of interest. 11. Thus, accordingly, Rs.5,000/- more is granted to the applicant, over and above the compensation granted by the Tribunal along with costs throughout. The appeal is allowed to the above terms. 12. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.