The competency of a minor witness to give evidence and the determination of compensation for permanent disability, future loss of income, pain and suffering, and non-pecuniary damages are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 4.9.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,68,820/- as compensation in favour of the claimant. One Appeal - S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5421/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Co. for modification of the judgment and award dated 4.9.2018, whereas another appeal - S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1074/2019 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

2. Alongwith the appeal no. 1074/2019, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed. The said application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Claimant through her father filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 1.7.2014.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has submitted that claimant was 11 years of age. At the time of the accident which took place on 01.07.2014, 8 persons were sitting in the Car, but none of them was examined except the claimant. The claimant being minor at the time of accident, was incompetent to depose evidence against the Insurance Co. The claimant has failed to examine any eye witness to prove the negligence of the driver. Testimony of the claimant, who is the sole witness, being minor cannot be relied upon. He further submits that so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Claimant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 34.35%. However, to prove the same, the Doctor has not been examined. He further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun Versus Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited reported in (2013) 4 RCR (Civ) 295 if the disability is upto 30%-60%, then claimant would be entitled to Rs. 4.00 lakh as compensation, but the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,68,820/- as compensation, which is on the higher side. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that on account of accident which took place on 1.7.2014, different claim petitions were filed. In some of the claim petitions, the Insurance Co. entered into compromise and this fact is well established from the order sheet dated 9.9.2017 of the Tribunal. For this reason, the Insurance Co. is estopped from challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the issue of quantum and liability. He further submits that at the time of deposition, the claimant was 15 years of age. At the time of recording her statement, she was studying in 11th class. She was mature and she was cross-examined also. Out of the total eight passengers who were travelling in the Car, seven died and claimant was the only eye witness, who remained alive. From her entire statement, it does not appear that she was incompetent to give evidence. In her cross-examination, no question was asked by the counsel for the Insurance Co., which could show that she was immature and did not understand the questions properly. She sustained 34.35% permanent disability, which is well proved from Ex. 6 issued by the Medical Board of C.H.C. Sanganer. On account of these injuries, her leg was shortened and she is unable to squat and sit cross legged. However, Tribunal granted very meager amount compensation hence the said amount requires enhancement. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Kiran Thr. Her father Hahnarayan Vs. Sajjan Singh & Ors. 2015 (1) R.A.R. 87 (SC). has observed as under:-

"With regard to the appellant-mino