The assessment of compensation must reflect the unique circumstances of child victims and consider all factors including pain, suffering, and future medical needs.

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nadia was approached by the minor claimant (hereafter 'the claimant'), represented by his father, with a claim application under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter 'the Act'). It was registered as MAC Case No. 391 of 2011. The pleadings therein reveal that consequent to the claimant (aged about 2 years 3 months) being dashed on 28.8.2011 by a truck bearing registration No. WB 53 - A 1304 (hereafter 'the said truck' ), which was being driven rashly and negligently, he sustained severe injury on his right leg and ultimately, to his utter misfortune, had to suffer an amputation at such a tender age. Compensation in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 was claimed. By its award dated 27.8.2014, the Tribunal decided such application by awarding compensation of Rs. 5,85,000 to the claimant, to be paid by the insurer of the offending truck being the respondent No. 2 before it (hereafter 'the insurer' ) within a month from date failing which such amount would carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till realization. The claimant, aggrieved by quantification of compensation payable to him, is in appeal before us under S.173 of the Act. The insurer after service of notice objected to the award by filing a cross - objection in the appeal, exercising its right in terms of O.41, R.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the insurer, it is not liable to pay compensation at all since it was not proved that the said truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

2. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the materials before us, we propose to dispose of the appeal and the cross - objection by this common judgment and order.

3. There can be no doubt that determination of damages for loss of human life or sufferance of physical disablement by a victim of a road accident involving use of a motor vehicle is indeed a difficult task. Such task becomes all the more onerous if the victim is of such a tender age as the claimant, who has suffered amputation of his right leg.

4. The father of the claimant deposed as PW 1. He did not say that he was an eyewitness to the accident. He, however, described the incidents post - accident. The claimant was taken to various hospitals and ultimately at Daffodil Nursing Home, Kolkata, where the right leg of the claimant had to be amputated. An artificial limb was necessary for the claimant's rehabilitation but due to financial stringency the same could not be arranged. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000 had already been spent for treatment of the claimant and such treatment was continuing on the date of his deposition. The board of doctors of Nadia District Hospital declared the claimant as 60 per cent orthopaedically handicapped, permanent in nature. He proved all the necessary documents including the police documents as well as medical documents and bills.

5. In course of cross - examination, however, PW 1 said that he saw the accident with his own eyes but did not lodge any complaint with the police on the fateful day. The suggestions that he noted the registration number of the said truck subsequently or that no accident took place owing to the fault of the driver of the said truck were denied.

6. The orthopaedic surgeon who was a signatory to the disability certificate issued in favour of the claimant was PW 2. Such certificate was proved by him and marked as Exh.

7. He adduced evidence that he had medically examined the claimant on 27.6.2012 and since it was an amputation case of a young patien