JUDGMENT : 1. The claimant is challenging the judgment dated 1.1.2019 passed by the MACT (Aux), Dahod at Limkheda in MACP (New) no.299/17 (Original MACP no.3250/00). The claimant was minor at the time of the accident which occurred on 12.10.1998 and for that, the FIR was filed at Limkheda Police Station bearing I-CR no.249/98. The claimant was going from Limkheda to his Village on cycle to sell milk. He stated that he was riding his cycle slowly with due care and caution. While passing Limkheda Gram Panchayat at about 7.00 a.m., he faced the accident since opponent no.1 came driving his tempo bearing registration no.GJ-17 X- 3564 in a rash and negligent manner and with an excessive and uncontrollable speed, opponent no.1 lost control over the tempo which left the road and came on the side and dashed the claimant who was as per the plaint was aged about 14 years who had filed his application through the guardian and next friend his father Chhatrasinh Patel. On attaining majority, cause title was amended and the minor himself pursued the matter. The original claim petition was renumbered as MACP no.3889/04 and thereafter again numbered as MACP no.299/17. 2. The observation of the Tribunal shows that he had sustained 35.47% permanent disability. The disability certificate was issued by Adarsh Orthopedic Hospital, Limkheda which was produced on record at Exh.29A. The parties had produced the purshis at Exh.29 to consider 10% physical disability for the body as a whole. The claimant minor would have suffered the disability and the said disability would have continued to affect his day to day life. 3. In the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in AIR 2014 SC 736 , it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the claim by a victim child, has categorically held that it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the MV Act for more than one reasons. The relevant observations are as under:- “8. 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 relevant observations are as under:- “8. 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. 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.” 4. It has been brought to the notice that the yardstick which has been laid in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra) has not been followed by the Tribunal. In Paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the slab to be followed in the case of minor sustaining permanent disability. “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.” 5. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.” 5. Since the parties have consented to 10% physical disability following the yardstick laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra), the claimant would be entitled for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, the medical expenses of Rs.7,000/- was proved before the Tribunal and the amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted for attendant and transportation borne by the parents towards discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization. Thus, the compensation would be as under:- Rs.1,00,000/- Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts, etc. and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability Rs. 7,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Attendant and transportation Rs.1,17,000/- Total compensation 6. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.49,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, the claimant would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.67,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Let total amount be paid to the claimant on verification of identity. 7. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.