JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant (a minor at the time of accident) has challenged the judgment and award dated 04.07.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod in M.A.C.P. No.6933 of 2004 on the ground that the disability sustained by the minor is assessed as 10% and thus has prayed for enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts of the case are that on 26.10.2003 the appellant (a minor) was going to his house walking on the side of the Highway Road at Village Kathala. At that moment, the respondent No.1 came driving a Jeep bearing Registration No.GJ-08-A-3434 in a rash and negligent manner with excessive and uncontrollable speed, because of which the driver lost control over the Jeep and dashed the appellant who sustained serious injuries. A complaint was lodged with Dahod Rural Police Station, the appellant received treatment at Nayak Hospital, Dahod and was thereafter shifted to Ankit Hospital, Dahod. Due to the injuries sustained, the appellant could not carry on his routine work and also had to bear huge medical expenses which lead to the filing of the present Motor Accident Claims Petition. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Sabir B. Saiyyad submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the case herein by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in 2014 14 SCC 396 . It is submitted that the nature of injuries sustained by the minor are to such an extent that the claimant was not in a position to even undertake the routine work and there were huge medical expenses and therefore, the compensation amount be enhanced by this Court. 4. While countering the above arguments, learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company Mr. Anal Shah states that the disability for the body as a whole has been assessed as 10% and considering the multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal has granted the future economic loss of Rs.22,500/- which requires no interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the amount granted towards pain, shock and suffering and Special Diet, Attendance charges and Transportation Charges is just and proper. It is also submitted that as per the observations of the learned Tribunal, the right of interest of claim came to be closed. It is further submitted that the amount granted towards pain, shock and suffering and Special Diet, Attendance charges and Transportation Charges is just and proper. It is also submitted that as per the observations of the learned Tribunal, the right of interest of claim came to be closed. Thus, the claimant was not entitled for the interest for the period between 26.06.2014 to 20.06.2018 which according to learned Advocate Mr. Anal S. Shah should also be considered by this Court. 5. To the above submission, learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Sabir B. Saiyyad has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Aminaben Rahimbhai Kadiwala and Others reported in 2001 (2) G.L.R. 1108 to submit the Insurance Company cannot deny its liability to pay interest on the amount of damages awarded. It is further submitted that the Court on its own cannot pass any such orders of limiting the right of the claimant to claim the interest amount by any such administrative orders. 6. On going through the records of the case, it reflects that the learned Tribunal has granted the amount towards loss of future income by considering the annual income of the minor under a notional basis and has assessed an yearly amount of Rs.15,000/-. 7. In the case of Mallikarjun (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in Paragraph 8 as under :- “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, assistance of attendant, etc. The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. 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, assistance of attendant, etc. The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, 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 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.” 8. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that for children there is no income and children cannot be equated to that of non-working persons. The main element of damage in the case of a child is the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs and 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court thus laid down the yardstick for considering the compensation to be awarded to minor claimant in Paragraph 12 of the above decision which is as under :- “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 upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.” 9. Here in this case, the disability assessed is 10% of the minor claimant. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.” 9. Here in this case, the disability assessed is 10% of the minor claimant. Thus following the ratio as laid down in the case of Mallikarjun (supra), the claimant would be entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the permanent disability of 10% and thus, the above amount is granted towards the same. 10. In the case of Mallikarjun (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization and considering the fact that the parents would have taken care of the child and therefore, considering the recuperating period for six months for the individual parents, the assessment of income can be done @ Rs.2,000/- per month under the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings, the said amount under this head comes to Rs.12,000/-. Under the head of Special Diet, Attendance charges and Transportation Charges, the learned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.2,500/- which this Court deems it proper to increase to Rs.5,000/-. 11. Thus, the computation can be made as under :- Details Amt. (Rs.) Permanent Disability 1,00,000.00 Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings 12,000.00 Special Diet, Attendance charges & Transportation Charges 5,000.00 Medical Expenses 4,845.00 TOTAL 1,21,845.00 The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.34,845/- and this Court grants a total amount of Rs.1,21,845/-. 12. In the case of Aminaben (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court has observed in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under :- “7. We have also examined the provisions of Sec. 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It reads as under:- Section 149(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-sec. 12. In the case of Aminaben (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court has observed in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under :- “7. We have also examined the provisions of Sec. 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It reads as under:- Section 149(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-sec. (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had noticed through the Court or as the case may be the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely :….” 8. Plain meaning of the opening words "no sum" under this provision has to be strictly interpreted. If this is the intention of the legislature that no sum is payable, then, it is difficult to understand the logic that the compensation is payable by the insurance company but not interest. What is the intention of the legislature in enacting this provision is that if the notice is not given to the insurance company, the insurance company has a right to approach the tribunal for impleadment and after the insurance company is impleaded, it can defend the action on the grounds enumerated under this sub-section. Learned single Judge has not taken care of the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Act, and therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the interest is not payable by the insurance company for the period the insurance company was not impleaded. 9. To our mind, the matter is covered by the Apex Court's decision in Urmila Pandey & Ors. v. Khalil Ahmed & Ors., (supra). In this case also, the insurance company was impleaded before the tribunal but at late stage. The exact dates are not available from the judgment of the Apex Court. However, the fact remains that the insurance company was impleaded before the tribunal after ten years but the delay cannot be said to be a ground for disallowing the claim of interest. The exact dates are not available from the judgment of the Apex Court. However, the fact remains that the insurance company was impleaded before the tribunal after ten years but the delay cannot be said to be a ground for disallowing the claim of interest. In Urmila Pandey's case (supra), the matter was seriously contested and it was found that the insurance cover note was not placed before the tribunal or before the High Court. On the other hand, it was placed before the Apex Court after about 25 years of the accident. In the view of Apex Court, this fact itself was not sufficient to make the insurance company liable to pay the awarded money. The Apex Court further found that there was contemporaneous evidence on record to show that the cover note is genuine. In the case before us, there is no dispute that the vehicle was insured and the policy was in force on the date of the accident. The genuineness of the policy has not been challenged before us. Learned Counsel Mr. Hakim has pointed out that in addition to this, the owner of the vehicle also claimed compensation from the insurance company for damage to the vehicle. On these facts, he contended that it cannot be assumed that the insurance company had no notice of the vehicular accident. The Apex Court in Urmila Pandey's case, on the established facts and also on the basis of the cover note produced after 25 years, awarded compensation against the insurance company together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Even if for a moment the award of interest by Apex Court is considered obiter dicta, in that case, obiter dicta of the Apex Court is binding upon the Division Bench of this Court, and therefore, we arc unable to uphold the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the interest is not payable during the period the insurance company was not impleaded. The aid from the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Diwaliben Jayantilal (supra) taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant, to our view, cannot be permitted.” 13. Thus, in accordance with the observations made in the above referred judgment of Aminaben (supra), the words ‘no sum’ under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act has to be strictly interpreted. The aid from the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Diwaliben Jayantilal (supra) taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant, to our view, cannot be permitted.” 13. Thus, in accordance with the observations made in the above referred judgment of Aminaben (supra), the words ‘no sum’ under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act has to be strictly interpreted. If it was the intention of the Legislature that no sum is payable, then it is difficult to understand the logic that the compensation is payable by the Insurance Company but not interest. The Insurance Company has right to defend the action on the grounds enumerated in the sub-section and therefore, would be liable to pay the interest amount from the date of the petition till the amounts are recovered. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Aminaben (supra), this Court considers that the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal limiting the recovery of the compensation amount @ interest so granted excluding the period from 26.06.2014 to 20.06.2018 is not right and legal in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Thus on that basis, the observation of the Tribunal is unfair and erroneous. 14. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.34,845/- with rate of interest @ 9% per annum, which the respondent/s are liable to deposit, with the enhanced amount as Rs.87,000/- (Rs.1,21,845/- minus Rs.34,845/-). In the result, the present respondent/s are directed to deposit the amount within a period of EIGHT (8) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is further directed that the claimants would be entitled to receive the total amount @ 9% per annum and enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application and the disbursement of the amount be made as per the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. 15. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated 04.07.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod in M.A.C.P. No.6933 of 2004 stands modified to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.