JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been laid as against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, thereby awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.7,13,200/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 11.07.2008 when the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider, the motorcycle was driven by her father on Perundurai to Chennimalai Road near Arasankuttai in front of LNK Nagar from north to south on the left hand side of the road, a car which was coming from south to north in a rash and negligent manner driven by the first respondent came to wrong side of the road and hit against the motorcycle. Due to which, the claimant as well as her father sustained grievous injuries. As far as the claimant is concerned, she sustained crush injury on her right leg and also injuries on all over the body. Due to the said accident, her right leg was amputated above the knee level. At the time of accident, she was aged about only eight years. Hence, the claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation at Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed counter stating that the accident was not took place on the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and only because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which was travelled by the claimant, the accident took place. Even at the worst, the contributory negligence only can be fixed as against the second respondent and the compensation claimed by the claimant is also exorbitant and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The second respondent also disputed the injuries sustained by the claimant as well as the licence of the rider of the motorcycle.

5. On the side of the claimant, examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. On the side of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in. Court documents were marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. On the basis of the evidence available on records and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal fastened entire negligence on the first respondent and awarded compensation at Rs.7,13,200/- payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant came forward with the present appeal for enhancement of the award amount.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claimant was aged about eight years at the time of accident and she lost her right leg above the knee level. Therefore, the Tribunal failed to consider her marital prospects and also awarded very meager amount under head of Pain, agony and trauma. The Tribunal also failed to award any compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life and attenders charges. In support of his contention, he cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Minor Soundarya rep. by guardian K.Nagaraj and others reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 8204.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the judgment cited by the claimant is not applicable to the case on hand, since the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held on the basis of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, in which the claimant was aged about 16 to 21 years at the time of accident. Whereas in the case on hand, the claimant was eight years old at the time of accident and as such the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the claimant is not applicable to the case on hand. He further submitted that the accident took place in the year 2008. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled for inte