JUDGMENT :

MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J.

1. Captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 03.05.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) and Additional District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.67 of 2006, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,408/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 07.11.2005, at about 06:00 hours, minor applicant along with his father was walking on the road near the Garnala Curve in the sim of Village- Icchapura. When they were crossing the road, in the meantime, the driver of opponent No.1 came by driving the Maruti Van bearing registration No.GJ-7-R-1565 in a rash and negligent manner at very excessive speed so as to endanger the human life and dashed with the minor applicant. As a result of the accident, the minor applicant sustained grievous injuries on the various part of the body.

2.1. Having been served with the notice of claim petition, the opponent No.3-Insurance Company appeared through its advocate and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-14, thereby denying the contents of the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

2.2. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exhibit-33, for determination.

“1. Whether the applicant proves that she sustained injuries, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle, involved in this accident?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any amount of compensation? If yes, to what extent and from whom?

3. What order and award?”

2.3. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,408/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

2.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant-herein preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4. Mr. Shushil R. Shukla, learned advocate for the original claimant/appellant-herein, vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the original claimant/appellant was aged about 12 years and he was studying in 5^th standard. Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, he became incapable to continue his studies, therefore, he left the school. He further submitted that the accident took place on 07.11.2005. At the relevant point of time, the minimum wages for skilled worker was of Rs.2400/- however the learned Tribunal had considered the notional income of the claimant/appellant at Rs.2250/- per month which is at a lower side. He further submitted that owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant/appellant became 100% disabled and he was aged about 12 years old, however the learned Tribunal had not considered the future prospects of the claimant/appellant. He further submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the monthly income ought to have been added on account of future prospects of the claimant/appellant.

4.1. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in the said accident, the claimant/appellant sustained the injuries on his head, ribs and other bodily injuries. Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, the right leg and right hand of the appellant become weakened and he has become disabled to do any work. He further submitted that the claimant has also examined the Dr. Vijay R. Sheth who issued the disability certificate. In his deposition, he proved t