1. The appeal in MFA No.10005/2010 is by the Insurance Company and the appeal in MFA No.7651/2011 by the claimant lay a challenge to the judgment and award dated 31.07.2010 made by Addl. MACT, Hassan allowing MVC 1649/2007 whereby a compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded with 6% annual interest thereon subject to usual condition of bank deposit. The challenge by the insurer is on the ground of liability itself whereas the challenge by the claimant is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

2. On 14.06.2005 because of the accident caused by the offending Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA27 B8786 due to rash and negligent driving, the minor claimant had sustained grievous injuries. In his claim petition in MVC No.1649/2007, the injured had filed the written statement resisting the claim.

3. To prove the claim, the father of the claimant namely Mr. Annappa (wrongly stated to be Suresha) was examined as Pw1 and in his evidence 09 documents came to be marked as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 which interalia comprised of the Police papers, IMV Report and the medical records. The doctor who had treated the injured boy was examined as Pw2. From the side of the insurer, one Mr. K.N. Ramachandra, its official was examined as RW1 and in his evidence 03 documents came to be marked as per Ex.R1, R2 and R3, which essentially comprised of DL extract, etc. The MACT after adverting to the pleadings of the parties and after weighing the evidentiary materials on record has passed the impugned judgment and award.

4. Learned panel counsel of the insurer submits that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and that the DL extract marked as per Ex.R3 did not have a transport endorsement and therefore, there is breach of essential terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and consequentially the liability could not have been fastened on the insurer at all. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the question of law raised in this appeal is no legal res integra vide Apex Court judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, disposed of on 03.07.2017, wherein, the question is answered against the insurer, holding that even in the absence of Transport Endorsement, the insurer is liable.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant pressing into service his appeal, argues that the impugned judgment and award are flaw some; the MACT has not awarded adequate compensation to the claimant; the MACT has not adverted to the guidelines to be adhered to, when the case involves injured minor claimant. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer submits that the MACT being a statutory Tribunal in its accumulated wisdom has appreciated the matter in the right perspective and has awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, indulgence in this appeal is uncalled for.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the insurer. I have perused the papers.

7. The contention of the claimant that the injured boy being aged 14 years, the ratio laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited & another, AIR 2014 SC 736 is prima-facie invokable. The Apex Court in the said case at para 12 of its judgment observed as under:

“Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90% , it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstance