JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.164/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 25/09/2019. The sole respondent herein is the third respondent in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claim petitioner, on 02/01/2015 at 09:30 am, while he was walking along the Balaramapuram-Kattakada public road, motorcycle bearing registration no. KL-20-G-8734, ridden by the second respondent, rashly and negligently knocked him down causing grievous injuries to him. 3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/rider remained ex parte. 4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but contended that the amount claimed was exorbitant. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. 1,31,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It was quite vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the Tribunal committed a gross illegality/mistake in relying on the dictum in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., 2013 KHC 4670 ; (2014) 14 SCC 396 in granting compensation. Ext.A9 disability certificate shows that due to the injuries, 13% permanent disability was caused to the claim petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal based on the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ought to have taken the functional disability as 26%. Ext.A9 disability certificate shows that due to the injuries, 13% permanent disability was caused to the claim petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal based on the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ought to have taken the functional disability as 26%. However, the Tribunal without any reason or justification fixed the disability at 7%, which is liable to be interfered with. It was also submitted that if the Tribunal had any doubts about Ext.A9 certificate, it ought to have referred the claim petitioner to a Medical Board or summoned the doctor concerned to get necessary clarifications, and fix the percentage of disability accordingly. In support of the arguments, reference was made to the dictums in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 ; Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General insurance Company Limited, (2022) 7 SCC 738 and Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Mujeeb Rahman A.P., 2025 (1) KHC 606. 10. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the Tribunal has not committed any infirmity in relying on the dictum in Master Mallikarjun (Supra) and granting compensation and therefore the Award calls for no interference. 11. The claim petitioner was a 13 year old boy when the incident occurred on 02/01/2015. Ext.A2 wound certificate; Ext.A3 discharge summary and Ext.A9 disability certificate show the injuries sustained in the incident. Ext.A3 discharge summary dated 14/01/2015 issued by the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram reads thus - “FINAL DIAGNOSIS BIMALLEOLAR # (TYPE 2 EPIPHYSEAL INJURY LATERAL MALLEOLUS, TYPE 1 EPIPHYSEAL INJURY MEDIAL MALLEOLUS) CLINICAL FEATURES Admitted as a case of pain and deformity (R) ankle, patient was clinically and radiologically diagnosed as bimalleolar #(TYPE 2 EPIPHYSEAL INJURY LATERAL MALLEOLUS, TYPE 1 EPIPHYSEAL INJURY MEDIAL MALLEOLUS), patient was managed operatively with 1/3rd tubular plate for fibula and k wire fixation for medial malleolus, post op uneventful. W/I: clean. edema decreased, hence discharged. TREATMENT GIVEN AND COURSE IN HOSPITAL 1/3rd tubular plate for fibula and k wire fixation for medial malleolus” The Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011)1 SCC 343 followed in Anthony Swami v. M.D., KSRTC, (2020)7 SCC 161 held that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment. (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non - pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. It was further held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). However in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., 2010 (10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (8) SCALE 567 ). 12. Ltd., 2010 (8) SCALE 567 ). 12. In the light of the aforesaid dictum, the argument that when permanent disability is assessed as 13%, functional disability ought to have been fixed at 26%, is apparently incorrect. 13. In Master Mallikarjun (Supra) it has been held by the Apex court that 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 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 would 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. It has been further held that 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 and that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant etc. should be as follows - Rs. 1 lakh if permanent disability is upto 10%, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick ; Rs. 3 lakhs if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% , Rs. 4 lakhs if the disability is upto 60% ; Rs. 5 lakhs if the disability is upto 90% and Rs. 6 lakhs if the disability is above 90%. In the said case, the disability was to the tune of 18%. The claimant therein was hospitalised for a period of two months causing inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents and hence an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- along with 6% interest was granted to the claimant. 13.1. In Kajal (Supra) a young girl suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to her brain. According to the medical report produced, due to the head injury sustained she was left with a very low IQ and severe weakness in all her four limbs. She had severe hysteria and urinary incontinence. Her disability was assessed as 100%. 13.1. In Kajal (Supra) a young girl suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to her brain. According to the medical report produced, due to the head injury sustained she was left with a very low IQ and severe weakness in all her four limbs. She had severe hysteria and urinary incontinence. Her disability was assessed as 100%. One of the members of the Medical Board who had issued the disability certificate deposed before the Tribunal that as per the assessment done, her I.Q. was less than 20% of a child of her age and her social age was only of a 9 month old child. This meant that Kajal while lying on the bed would grow up to be an adult with all the physical and biological attributes which a woman would get on attaining adulthood, including menstruation etc., but her mind would remain of a 9 month old child and she would never understand what was happening all around her. Hence, in such circumstances, it was held that it was a case where departure had to be made from the normal rule as the pain and suffering suffered by the child was such that no amount of compensation would be able to compensate it. 13.2. In Master Ayush (Supra) the victim was a 5 year old child who was rendered paraplegic due to the accident after having suffered grievous injuries. He was unable to move both his legs and had complete sensory loss in both legs, urinary incontinence, bowel constipation and bed sores. He had lost his childhood and was dependent on others for his routine work. Hence compensation was accordingly granted. 13.3. In Mujeeb Rahman A.P. (Supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court was dealing with the case of death of a minor child. In the said case the argument advanced by the insurer that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kajal and Master Ayush could not be applied since those cases were concerning the determination of disability compensation payable to a minor child on account of 100% permanent disability and were lying in a vegetative state, was rejected. In the said case the argument advanced by the insurer that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kajal and Master Ayush could not be applied since those cases were concerning the determination of disability compensation payable to a minor child on account of 100% permanent disability and were lying in a vegetative state, was rejected. It was held that as the claim arises on account of the death of a minor, the Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that non application of the principle as laid down in Kajal and Master Ayush would lead to a clear disparity and would create two classes of claimants. In one class, the victim would be lying in a paraplegic stage and in the other, the claimants would be imbedded in profound grief over the death of their child but cannot claim parity in compensation. In cases of permanent disability, when it is permissible for the Tribunal and courts to apply the multiplier system even if the claimant is a minor, to hold that the multiplier system cannot apply while considering the claim for compensation on account of death of a minor defies logic and does not find support of law. In the light of the dictum in Angad Tiwari v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2024 KHC 8590 , the learned Single Judge concluded that in a case of death of a minor child, the application of the table formulated in National Insurance Company v. K.K.Assainar, 2019 (4) KLT 39 cannot be applied in view of the decision in Kajal (Supra) Master Ayush (Supra) and Angad Tiwari (Supra). Therefore, it was held that while calculating the notional income of the deceased minor child in a claim under Section 166 of the Act, the notification issued by the State of Kerala in terms of the provisions contained in the Minimum Wages Act in respect of a skilled worker has to be applied. The Tribunals throughout the State have been directed to apply the multiplier system by fixing the multiplicand in accordance with the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 while considering a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act on account of death of a minor child. 14. The Tribunals throughout the State have been directed to apply the multiplier system by fixing the multiplicand in accordance with the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 while considering a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act on account of death of a minor child. 14. Apparently, the facts of the aforesaid cases relied on by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand in the light of the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner herein. As held in Master Mallikarjun (Supra) if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% of the whole body, the amount of compensation to be awarded is Rs. 3,00,000/-. As per Ext.A9 the whole body disability caused is 13% and, therefore, the claim petitioner will be entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation under this head. 15. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent : Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount Awarded by Tribunal Modified in appeal 1 Loss of earning -- -- -- (No modification) 2 Transportation expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/- (No modification) 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,500/- Rs. 5,500/- (No modification) 4 Damage to clothing Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 500/- Rs. 500/- (No modification) 5 Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 3,000/- (No modification) 6 Bystander's expenses Rs. 5,000/- -- -- (No modification) 7 Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- -- -- (No modification) 8 Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life Rs. 1,50,000/- -- --(No modification) 9 Permanent disability Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- 10 Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents -- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- (No modification) Total Rs. 3,10,000/- Rs. 1,31,000/- Rs. 3,31,000/- In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (total compensation Rs. 3,31,000/-, that is, Rs. 1,31,000/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs. 2,00,000/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 168 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The third respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.