JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.450 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short ‘the tribunal’), the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/-with interest. 4. It is the case of the claimant being represented by his father and natural guardian that the claimant was aged about eight years by the time of the accident and that on 05.12.1999 at approximately 10.30 AM while the claimant was proceeding on Kuppam Krishnaji road near substation on Kuppam, the driver of bus bearing No.TN.37.D3399 drove it rashly and negligently dashed against the petitioner causing multiple injuries over his body, and he was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Kuppam. 5. The owner of the bus, i.e., the 1st respondent, died during the pendency of the proceedings, and his legal representatives 3 to 8 are added. 6. The 2nd respondent contended at the counter, denying the manner of an accident. In the counter, the 3rd respondent contends that the legal 1st representatives 3 to 8 are legal heirs of the deceased, the respondent. The petitioner is to put to strict proof of the nature of injuries caused and medical expenses incurred by him. Respondents 4 to 8 adopted the counter filed by the 3rd respondent. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. 8. To prove the claimant's case, during the trial, PWs.1 to 5 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in by them, and also no documents were marked. 9. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.60,000/-with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, the liability 1st of respondents 3 to 8 is against the estate of the deceased respondent. 10. 9. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.60,000/-with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, the liability 1st of respondents 3 to 8 is against the estate of the deceased respondent. 10. The learned appellant counsel contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that at the time of the accident, the victim was aged about eight years and suffered two fractures over his left leg above the left knee and below the left knee, and the petitioner underwent two operations in Saint Johnson Hospital at Bangalore, and steel rods were inserted and skin gratifying was done. The Tribunal failed to award the compensation amount under various heads and simply awarded the global compensation, which is against the judgment reported in 2007 (2) ALT 151 , and the Tribunal failed to appreciate Ex.A5 medical certificate stating that the petitioner had suffered 30% disability and shortening leg by two inches. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the Tribunal had granted an adequate amount of compensation by considering various heads of compensation. The enhancement sought by the appellant is exorbitant. 12. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and requires enhancement. POINT : 13. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the evidence, has given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal that the insurance policy was in force and subsisting at the time of the accident is also not disputed by the respondent/insurance company by filing an appeal or cross-objections. The said finding has attained finality. As such, the facts relating to the manner of the accident need not be discussed in detail. The respondents have also not disputed the case of the petitioners regarding the injuries sustained by him. 14. The said finding has attained finality. As such, the facts relating to the manner of the accident need not be discussed in detail. The respondents have also not disputed the case of the petitioners regarding the injuries sustained by him. 14. To prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner relied on Ex.A4 wound certificate issued by the hospital, Ex.A5 case summary and discharge summary sheet issued by St.Thomas Hospital, Bangalore and Ex.A6 disability certificate and Ex.A7 a bunch of prescriptions 11 in the number issued by Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, Ex.A8 a bunch of medical bills and prescriptions 13 in the number issued by St.Thomas Medical Hospital, Bangalore for Rs.3,369/-, Ex.A9 a bunch of medical bills 21 in number for Rs.2,091/-. The medical record shows that for the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he spent an amount of Rs.5,460/-, Ex.A10. The wound certificate also shows the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. The petitioner got examined by PW.2 – Dr S.Maria Victoria, and PW.3 – K.T.Thomas to establish the nature of treatment undergone by the petitioner. PW.2 – Civil Assistant Surgeon of Government Hospital, Kuppam, PW.3 is the Orthopaedics Unit – II, Professor St.Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. Based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the medical record placed on record by the petitioner, the Tribunal has found that the petitioner received a crush injury to his left foot. PW.2 Civil Assistant Surgeon identified the signature of the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Dr Chengal Reddy, who issued Ex.A10 stating that the crush injury on the left thigh was suffered by the petitioner and he was advised to go for Expert treatment at a higher institution. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner was taken to St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore and Professor of Orthopedic Unit – 2, Dr K.T.Thomas who deposed that he treated the minor petitioner Satish Kumar on 05.12.1999 at about 05.15 PM and found the following injuries. 1) Open fracture left femur lower 1/3rd. 2) Open fracture of both bones, left leg lower 1/3rd. 3) The degloving injury left leg extending from the min thigh to the ankle joint is 20cm X 10. 16. PW.3 issued Ex.A5 discharge summary of their hospital and admitted Ex.A8 medical bills pertaining to the petitioner. Ex.A4 is the medical certificate issued by the medical officer that shows that all the injuries are grievous in nature. 3) The degloving injury left leg extending from the min thigh to the ankle joint is 20cm X 10. 16. PW.3 issued Ex.A5 discharge summary of their hospital and admitted Ex.A8 medical bills pertaining to the petitioner. Ex.A4 is the medical certificate issued by the medical officer that shows that all the injuries are grievous in nature. The petitioner had suffered 30% disability, a shortening of the leg by 2 inches, and the movement of the left ankle was also restricted. 17. To prove the Ex.A6 disability certificate, the petitioner was examined by PW.5, another Orthopedic Surgeon who is one of the medical board members of S.V.R.R.Hospital, Tirupathi. He issued Ex.A6 disability certificate stating that the petitioner suffered 30% of disability. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the petitioner had proved that he suffered from two fractures and one simple injury, and he suffered 30% disability. The respondents had not questioned the finding by filing appeal or cross-objections, and the finding attained finality. 18. In the case of Bhagwandas Tiwari and others Vs. Narasimha Reddy and others, 2007 (2) ALT 151 this Court held that "the tribunals, while awarding compensation, should state under what head they are awarding what amount of compensation so that the appellate forum can find out the entitlement or otherwise of the claimants for the amount awarded by the tribunal”. Thus it is clear that the tribunal is supposed to award specifying heads under which head the compensation is awarded. But the tribunal has not followed the same 19. After giving such a finding, the Tribunal observed that since the petitioner is not earning person, no notional income can be taken into consideration and awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/-which included the medical bills, transport and all other counts without specifying under which head such compensation is awarded. 20. At this stage it is relevant to refer case law relating to compensation in injury/disability cases. In the case of Rajkumar. vs Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles pertaining to compensation in injury cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has identified various heads under two distinct major heads of damages, i.e., pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in similar matters in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has identified various heads under two distinct major heads of damages, i.e., pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in similar matters in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, AIR 2013 ACJ 2445 (SC). It would be worthwhile to reproduce the excerpts of such judgment as under: “8. …….. while assessing the non-pecuniary damages, the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that is likely to be suffered, any future damages for the loss of amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation in active sports, etc., damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc., have to be addressed especially in the case of a child victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come. While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. The main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For children, there is no income. The only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the notional income as Rs. 15,000/-per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, the assistance of an attendant, etc. The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, and deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset, to some extent, the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. Appropriate compensation for a disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In other words, apart from this head, there shall only be the claim for the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation, etc.". Appropriate compensation for a disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In other words, apart from this head, there shall only be the claim for the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation, etc.". “(12)……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 and above 90%, it should be Rs. 6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick”. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subulaxmi v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and Another, 2012 ACJ 2863 (S.C.), which is available in paragraphs 5 and 12 of the said judgment, which, for ease of reference, is extracted as under: "5…. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as having been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first, we shall advert to the issue of whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future earnings. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ 2694 (S.C.), after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh 1990 ACJ 777 (S.C.) and B. Kothandapani v. T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd., 2011 and 1971 (S.C.), this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity. The other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ 191 (S.C.) "12. The other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ 191 (S.C.) "12. The ratio of the above-noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers a permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earning and the victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." 23. By following the principles laid down in the said decision, this Court views that Tribunal has not considered the case of the petitioner in a proper way while granting compensation amount. The material placed on record shows that the petitioner suffered 30% permanent disability and there was a shortening of the leg by two inches, and the movement of the left ankle was restricted. In the said facts of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-towards permanent disability. The appellant being a minor at the time of the accident, deserve compensation under various heads as follows : S.No. Head of the claim Amount Awarded 1. Loss of studies Rs.20,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/- 3. Expenses incurred by the parents towards attendant charges Rs.5,000/- 4. Loss of Amenities of life Rs.45,000/- 5. Future medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- 6. Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- 7. Transportation to hospital Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.1,00,000/- 24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed without costs by increasing the compensation amount from Rs.60,000/-to Rs.2,00,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents 2 to 8. The liability of respondents 3 to 8 is against the estate of the deceased 1st respondent as directed by the Tribunal. The insurance company shall deposit the balance compensation amount within two months from the date of this order. The petitioner is entitled to receive compensation after attaining a majority by filing a proper application before the Tribunal. 25. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.