JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Special Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2018, made in M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Special Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai. 2. The minor appellant-claimant, represented by her father Ganesan, filed M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Special Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 18.08.2015. 3. According to the minor appellant, on 18.08.2015, at about 8.30 p.m, while she was riding in a Honda Activa bearing Registration No.TN-59-S- 1906 in front of Veterinary Medical College Hospital, Veppery Main Road, Chennai, from West to East, the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-8487, owned by the respondent-Transport Corporation, coming from East to West in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the Honda Activa which the appellant was riding and caused the accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and lost her right vision and filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her. 4. The respondent-Transport Corporation filed counter statement and denied the entire averments in the claim petition and submitted that on the date of accident viz., 18.08.2015, at about 8.30 p.m, the driver of the Bus stopped the vehicle at Veterinary Hospital Bus Stop for the passengers to alight and board the Bus. When the driver of the Bus started the Bus, the appellant, who was a minor, without holding driving license, drove the Honda Activa in a rash and negligent manner and lost control and dashed in front of the Bus. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the minor appellant. The father of the appellant lodged the complaint based on hear say evidence and hence, the respondent denied paying compensation to the appellant. 5. Before the Tribunal, the father of the minor appellant was examined as P.W.1 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the side of the respondent-Transport Corporation, the driver of the Bus was examined as R.W.1, but did not mark any document. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, the father of the minor appellant was examined as P.W.1 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the side of the respondent-Transport Corporation, the driver of the Bus was examined as R.W.1, but did not mark any document. 6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that both the driver of the Bus as well as the minor appellant contributed to the accident and fixed 75% negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus and 25% negligence on the minor appellant. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.18,66,000/- as compensation to the appellant and directed the respondent-Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.13,99,500/- being 75% of the compensation to the appellant. 7. Questioning the 25% negligence fixed on the minor appellant and not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the minor appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing 25% negligence on the part of the appellant. The accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus owned by the respondent-Transport Corporation. FIR was registered only against the driver of the respondent. The Tribunal erred in fixing 25% negligence on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire negligence on the part of the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the appellant was a minor College Student. The Tribunal erred in fixing only a sum of Rs.25,000/- as notional income of the appellant. The Tribunal ought to have fixed more amount as notional income, taking into consideration the educational qualification of the appellant. The Tribunal failed to grant compensation towards future medical expenses, loss of marital prospects and loss of amenities and prayed for setting aside 25% of the negligence fixed on the appellant and for enhancement of the compensation. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials available on record. 10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that admittedly, on the date of accident, the appellant was minor, studying 11th Standard in a School. She did not possess driving license. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent-Transport Corporation and perused the entire materials available on record. 10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that admittedly, on the date of accident, the appellant was minor, studying 11th Standard in a School. She did not possess driving license. The appellant drove the Honda Activa on the date of accident in contravention of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is to be noted that the appellant has not examined any eyewitness, except her father, to substantiate the contention that accident has occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Bus owned by the respondent-Transport Corporation. It is the contention of the respondent that driver of the Bus stopped the Bus at Veterinary Hospital Bus Stop for the passengers to alight and board the Bus. At that time, the appellant lost the control and dashed in front of the Bus and sustained injuries. To substantiate their case, the respondent examined driver of the Bus as R.W.1. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, held that the driver of the Bus ought to have been more careful in driving the vehicle whenever the minor child is driving the vehicle and fixed 75% negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus and 25% on the part of the appellant. We find no error in the said reasoning of the Tribunal for fixing negligence on both, warranting interference by this Court. 11. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that at the time of accident, she was a 11th Standard student studying in English Medium School and in the accident, she lost her right vision and sustained multiple fractures. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the admitted case that appellant was an unemployed person, particularly, a student studying in School. The Tribunal, without any materials, erroneously held that appellant is a Medical College Student and fixed notional income of the appellant as Rs.25,000/- per month. Further, the appellant suffered 30% loss of vision in her right eye. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier method, but failed to convert the disability for a part of the body into whole body. The Tribunal has granted excessive amount for loss of earning capacity. Further, the appellant suffered 30% loss of vision in her right eye. The Tribunal had applied the multiplier method, but failed to convert the disability for a part of the body into whole body. The Tribunal has granted excessive amount for loss of earning capacity. In view of the same, the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation separately towards disability. The appellant has not made out any case for enhancement. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.13,99,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is confirmed. The respondent-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award amount determined by the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.3333 of 2016. On such deposit, the award amount is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minor appellant attains majority. Ganesan, father of the minor appellant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor appellant. No costs.