Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel

appearing for the respondent.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant

before the tribunal is that, the minor claimant who

sustained injuries is aged about 11 years and suffered the

compound fracture of lower 1/3^rd of tibia and fibula and in

support of the claim examined the Doctor and Doctor

assessed the disability of 16% to whole body and also in

the evidence observed that, she walks with limping. The

tribunal accepted the disability of 6 to 10% and awarded

compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and

- 3 -

suffering, medical expenses and attendant charges of

Rs.30,000/-, towards permanent disability, amenities and

marriage prospectus awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/-,

in all Rs.1,10,000/-. The counsel appearing for the

appellant would submits that, the tribunal failed to award

any compensation under the head of disability and also not

awarded any compensation under the head of loss of

income of parents since the parents have taken care of

minor girl, hence, the compensation is very meager and it

requires interference.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent would vehemently contend that, the tribunal

considered the disability at 6 to 10% and awarded just

and reasonable compensation and not committed any

error.

4.

Having heard the respective counsel and also

on the material available on record, the Doctor who has

been examined as P.W.2 deposed that, the fracture of

lower 1/3^rd of tibia and fibula are mall united and walks

- 4 -

with limping and the tribunal not considered the evidence

of P.W.2 and when the claimant sustained the compound

fracture of lower 1/3^rd of tibia and fibula and disability

assessed by the Doctor is not exorbitant and the tribunal

lost sight of taking note of the compound fracture of lower

1/3^rd of tibia and fibula and ought not to have reduced to 6

to 10 % and even though the disability considered 6 to

10%, no compensation has been awarded under the head

of pain and suffering with regard to the discomfort,

amenities in life and on account of permanent disability,

only awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of

pain and sufferings and the very approach of the tribunal

is erroneous. The Apex court in the case of Master

Mallikarjun’s case taken note of similar circumstances,

wherein,

18%

disability

awarded

an

amount

of

Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering,

mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and

discomforts and also loss of amenities in the life on

account of permanent disability and in the case on hand

- 5 -

also entitled for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under the

said head since the disability is assessed a 16% to the

whole body. The discomfort, inconvenience and loss of

earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization

and taking care of the minor girl who had suffered the

compound fracture of lower 1/3^rd of tibia, it is appropriate

to award an amount of Rs.25,000/-. The tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of the medical

treatment and attendant charges and the medical bills are

amounting to Rs.19,000/- and hence, it does not requires

any interference of this Court, since the tribunal also

considered the attendant charges and the same is not

required to award separately and it is appropriate to award

an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of medical

expenses, which has been incurred. The Apex Court also

awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of

future medical expenses for correction of the mall union of

the fracture and incidental expenses for such treatment

and in the case on hand also the Doctor P.W.2 who has

- 6 -

been categorically deposed that, the injured had suffered

the mall united compound fracture of lower 1/3^rd tibia and

fibula. When such being the case, the claimant is entitled

for an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of future

medical expenses for correction of mall union of fracture of

tibia and fibula. In all the claimant is en