JUDGMENT :

N. Kirubakaran, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2015 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 776 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Tiruppur.

1. Gods must be insane, for having been so cruel to the innocent little girl, who was walking on the road, holding her mother's hand, when she was hit behind by a bus driven rashly and negligently by the 2nd respondent driver causing the accident. Whether any amount of money could get back the leg, which the victim in this case, lost, when she was hardly aged 8 years? Will it relieve her of the pain and suffering, which she underwent, because of the accident or will it revive her marital prospects? The answers to all the above queries are, unfortunately, in the negative. No amount of compensation would give her the pleasures of life, which, as a normal person, she would have experienced. She has been made to endure untold misery and hardship and also bear the social stigma as a disabled person. It is shameful to note that disabled persons are looked down upon, in our society, as if they are sinners and they are not accepted as normal persons, which gives them more pain and agony, rather than the fact that they are disabled.

2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company as against the award of Rs. 19,04,500/- passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Tiruppur in M.C.O.P. No. 776 of 2012 in favour of the 1st respondent for the amputation of her right leg from thigh due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident, which occurred on 23.04.2012 when she was dashed down by a bus belonging to the 3rd respondent driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant, while walking on the road holding her mother's hand.

3. The claimant has also filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Heard Mr.S. Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M. Lokesh, learned counsel representing Mr.Ma.P. Thangavel, learned counsel for the claimant.

5. The appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning only the quantum of compensation. The manner of the accident and the negligence aspect are not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, the said issue is not gone into as it has not been questioned by the appellant.

6. The victim, in this case, was hardly 8 years old, at the time of accident on 23.04.2012 and she was studying in II standard. It is proved by the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus and it dashed against the 1st respondent/victim and the vehicle ran over her and crushed her right leg. Because of the injuries, the little girl's right leg was amputated below hip. Therefore, the disability has been fixed at 85% by the Tribunal, based on PW.2's evidence. The disability, as determined by P.W.2 Doctor, is based on medical records and after examining the girl. Ex-P5 photographs produced before this Court would also disclose that the girl lost her right leg. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with 85% disability fixed by the Tribunal considering the tender age of the girl and this Court confirms the disability fixed by the Tribunal at 85%.

7. The Tribunal, fixing the disability at 85%, awarded Rs.5 lakhs under the said head; a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards "Loss of Marital Prospects"; Rs.1 lakh towards "Pain and Suffering and Rs.1lakh towards "Mental Agony"'; Rs.4.5 lakhs towards "Attendant Charges" throughout life; Rs.5 lakhs towards artificial leg; Rs.34,500/- towards "Medical Expenses" and Rs.20,000/- towards "Attendant Charges" during treament, in all, amounting to Rs.19,04,500/-.

8. Though Mr.S. Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, N