1. This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in the accident claim. In MACP No.273/13, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed by judgment dated 1st October, 2016 awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the claimants. He has 7 year old girl and she suffered permanent disability shown as 35%. The claimant by the Appeal seeks enhancement to the tune of Rs.27,70,000/- restricted to Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of court-fee.

2. As per the claim petition on 12.02.2013 at 1.45 p.m. Sayyad Alisha aged 7 years was proceeding to a shop from her house at Ambhora. That time, tanker MH16 AE 7786 belonging to and driven by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 gave her forceful dash causing grievous injuries to her. The claimant was shifted to Pandit Hospital, Ahmednagar, where she underwent 3 operations. She was there for 4 days. Thereafter, she was shifted to Noble hospital. She was admitted from 15.02.2013 to 26.02.2013. She had suffered severe crush injury to left thigh and was operated for debridement with skin grafting surgery. She claimed that she incurred medical expanses of Rs.4,00,000/- inclusive of travelling, diet and attendance.

3. The FIR came to be lodged after one month on 13.03.1013. The Claimant claimed that she had sustained 35% permanent disability and has to move in a wheel chair. Her marriage prospects are considerably reduced. She was a bright student and had high expectations in education and sports. She was doing household work and was also assisting her parents in the hospital and was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. With these pleadings, she claimed compensation of Rs. 27,70,000/- including Rs.10,00,000/- for future economic loss, expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/- for future treatment and Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life.

4. Respondent No.1 driver has admitted the involvement of his vehicle, but denied any rashness and negligence on his part. He admitted that crime was registered against him. He was driving the tanker at the relevant time and crime was registered against him. But the vehicle was duly insured at the relevant time. He was carefully driving the tanker, but the claimant all of a sudden, came in front of the tanker, still he applied brakes and tried to save her life. The claimant was too young to travel on a road. The spot panchnama is wrongly drawn and the spot was not on kaccha road.

5. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed written statement with Exh.16 and denied the various contentions made in the petition. The factum of involvement of the vehicle in the insured vehicle is denied. It is claimed that non-discloser of the accident for a period of one month to the Police and to the Medical Officer is highly suspicious indicative of planting of the vehicle in collusion with respondent No. 1 and the Police. Respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license, fitness certificate and permit. There was a breach of policy. The claim is highly exaggerated. The claimant cannot be earning any income as claimed. The policy is subject to the confirmation. Hence, on the basis of this application, the issues were framed at Exhibit 22.

6. Initially, the claimant's claim came to be dismissed on 24.08.2015 for want of evidence showing involvement of the vehicle. Then, in the Appeal (First Appeal No.2552/2015), by judgment dated 07.04.2016, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh hearing. Again, the claimant examined additional witnesses and on the basis of evidence on record, the learned, Member, MACT accepted the case of involvement of the insured vehicle and causing of 35% permanent disability to the claimant. The breach of the terms and conditions of the policy was not proved. The claim was partly allowed to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. Hence this appeal.

7. Shri. Sushant Chaudhary, the learned advocate for