IMPORTANT POINT
Permanent disability suffered in motor accident – 40% is to be added towards future prospects while awarding compensation.

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Seeking enhancement in the motor accident compensation, the present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 7th January, 2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam in MACA No. 89 of 2009.

2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, upon an application filed by the injured-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,73,000/- together with interest @ 7% p.a. In the appeal, the High Court enhanced it awarding additional compensation of Rs. 5,75,883/- with interest. Further enhancement is pleaded.

3. The case pertains to a 14 years old minor student, who was studying in 7th standard and suffered 77.1% permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The accident took place on 19.04.2002 at about 12.15 pm. The appellant was travelling with other persons in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No. KL-9K-1413. The said auto rickshaw was hit by a lorry bearing No. KRR-6987. The lorry was owned by respondent No. 1, was driven by respondent No.2, and was insured with respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

3.1 The Claims Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The insurance coverage of the said offending vehicle was not in dispute. The insurer was held liable to indemnify the injured with compensation, which was assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs. 1,73,000/- along with interest. Having been of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads was low, the High Court proceeded to enhance the same.

3.2 While enhancing the compensation of the appellant from the one awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court applied multiplier of 15. As regards the extent of disability arising out of the injuries sustained, the High Court noted that as per the disability certificate dated 20.11.2019 the disability for the whole body which was assessed by the Medical Board was 77.1%. The permanent disability to the said extent was accepted by the Government Pleader by filing a memo dated 25.11.2019. The Insurance Company also did not raise any objection to the extent disability assessed.

3.3 The monthly income for the injured was taken as Rs. 3,620/-. After adding the future prospects at 40%, applying multiplier of 15 and accounting for the percentage of permanent disability, the additional compensation was arrived at to be Rs. 4,12,383/-. The bystander expenses awarded by the Tribunal was Rs. 2,750/- which was enhanced to Rs. 3,300/- by the High Court. An additional amount of Rs. 700/- from Rs. 2,200/- to Rs. 1,500/- was awarded towards extra nourishment. The High Court determined the medical expenses to be Rs. 53,250/- solely on the basis of the medical bills (Ext. A10). Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. The amount towards loss of amenities was enhanced to Rs. 80,000/- from Rs. 8,000/. Rs. 50,000/- was granted towards loss of marriage prospects and a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards future treatment, which amount was not to carry interest. All the above sums made to the total additional compensation of Rs. 5,75,883/- with 8% interest.

3.4 In the process of determining the compensation as above, the High Court applied relevant parameters including the law laid down by this Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396. In the said case this Court laid down the principles regarding payment of compensation for the injuries sustained by the children resulting into permanent disability.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, for the respondent.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and before considering the rival submission, question of enhancement of the compensation needs to be favourably addressed. In that, a recent decision of this Court dated