IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.323 of 2004 SAURAV KUMAR (MINOR) SON OF SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP INHIS NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. HIS MOTHER NAMELY NIDHI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUTAURA, POLICE STATION MOHANPUR, DISTRICT GAYA ….. APPLICANT/APPELLANT Versus 1. SRI MAHESH KUMAR SON OF SRI SAUDAGAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF MASTPURA, POLICE STATION BODHGAYA, POST OFFICE BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA OWNER OF THE VEHICLE MINI BUS NO.BR- 2P/1001 2. SOBHI PASWAN SON OF SHRI ETWARI PASWAN, C/O MAHESH KUMAR, SON OF SRI SAUDAGAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF MASTPURA, POLICE STATION BODH GAYA, POST OFFICE BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICE, A.N. ROAD, VIJAY BANK BUILDING, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT GAYA …. OPPOSITE PARTY/RESPONDENTS ----------- 11. 14.2.2011 The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 20.3.2004 passed in Motor Claim case No.1 of 2002/ 73 of 2000 (D.J.) by Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge Vth, Gaya, by which he has allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- for disability caused to minor appellant. The appellant has sought enhancement of compensation on the ground that the child aged about four months had lost his hand from the elbow which was opined by the doctor as 70% disability and, therefore, the compensation granted was much below what he was due. It appears that the appellant was opined as having suffered 70% disability only on the basis of the Doctor’s report who was not examined by the appellant. Under the circumstances when strict proof was essential for - 2 - determining the compensation this major lapse on the part of the appellant cannot be condoned and, therefore, there cannot be any order for enhancing of the compensation granted by the court below. In view of such, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )