N. Kirubakaran, J.

The poor girl was playing with her friend without knowing what the fate has got stock for her. When the appellant was playing with her friend, the respondent bus driven rash and negligently hit the appellant and ran over her left leg resulting in sustaining of multiple injuries in all parts of the left leg. Therefore, the claim petition.

2. On contest, the tribunal held that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the transport corporation bus and erroneously awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation, without application of mind. The said award is being challenged before this Court by the appellant by way of this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. E.C. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Mr. P. Paramasivadoss, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Transport Corporation.

4. The appellant/claimant is present before this Court and this court could see her left leg is completely spoiled and twisted unable her not to walk properly. The very look itself appears that the left leg is completely spoiled and twisted and gives an ugly look and disfigurement of the leg.

5. The claimant sustained compound communicated bone fracture left supracondylar (femur) with closed both bone fracture left leg with degloving injury with fracture left. PW2 - doctor, deposed based on medical evidence namely Ex.P6 - discharge summary issued by the General Hospital, Pondy, Ex.P7 - discharge summary issued by the Government Hospital, Villupuram, Ex.P8 - OP sheet issued by the Government Hospital, Villupuram, Ex.P10 - disability certificate, Ex.P11 - x ray. PW2 determined the disability at 75%. The tribunal observed that only in case of amputation, 75% disability would arise and reduced the same to 55% and awarded Rs. 55,000/-. The left leg is twisted and looks like a spring. In fact, even amputation would have been better position than having this kind of disabled look. In the absence of any contra medical evidence, the tribunal should not have reduced the disability to 55%. In any event, this court takes 55% as the disability even though this court is convinced that 70% should be the disability, as deposed by PW2 - doctor. Awarding Rs. 55,000/- for this kind of 55% disability is atrocious, unreasonable and it shocks the conscience of this Court. Therefore, the award of Rs. 55,000/- towards disability is set aside.

6. The appellant is present before this court and she is unable to walk alone and she has to depend upon her mother or father to walk. In those circumstances, her disability to walk is almost 100%. Thus, this court determines the loss of earning power at 50%. The disability sustained by the claimant and inability to walk independently makes this court to apply multiplier method. One another factor is that the claimant, after the accident was hospitalised for more than four months, i.e. 11.05.2005 to 14.09.2005. The prolonged admission into the hospital would prove the grievous nature of injuries and also the disability sustained by the claimant. Because of the injuries, the claimant could not continue her studies also.

7. The claimant was 10 years old at the time of accident who was playing with her friend. As rightly referred by Mr. E.C. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Mekala v. M. Malathi & Anr on 25 April, 2014 reported in (2014) (2) TN MAC 6 determined the notional income of a 16 years old student who was studying plus one as Rs. 10,000/- per month and added 50% towards future prospects determining the monthly income at Rs. 15,000/- per month. Considering the fracture in both the legs of the victim in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court determined the monthly income at Rs. 15,000/- including future prospects.

8. Following the above said judgment, this Court determines the monthly income of the