The court established that compensation for minors must account for permanent disability and future earnings, advocating calculator methods based on minimum wage laws and appropriate multipliers.

JUDGMENT :

C M JOSHI, J.

This appeal is filed by the petitioner in MVC No.1282/2019 assailing the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment dated 14.2.2022 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 15.02.2019, the petitioner/appellant was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA.33.W.5003 as a pillion rider from Malla (B) Village to Yelagod. When the motor cycle was on Wadagera - Sumbad road, due to rash and negligent driving of the rider, it turned turtle resulting in severe injuries to the petitioner. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Yadrami, and thereafter, to United Hospital, Kalaburagi. He was inpatient for 30 days in the said hospital and thereafter, he was taken to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. He was inpatient in the said hospital for about 48 days and despite such treatment, he is suffering from the permanent disability. It was contended that the petitioner was a student, aged about 18 years, and the injuries suffered by him have resulted in permanent neurological disabilities. Therefore, he sought just compensation from the owner and insurer of the motorcycle.

3. On being served with the notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle, appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the claim of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 did not file any written statement.

4. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company contended that the allegation of the said accident is fictitious and there being delay in filing the complaint, the motorcycle is falsely implicated by colluding with the police officials. Inter alia, it also contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess any valid driving licence and the terms and conditions of the policy were violated. Inter- alia, the quantum of the compensation claimed was also denied alleging that it is excessive, exorbitant and imaginary.

5. On the basis of the said contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was examined as PW1, Doctor has been examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked in evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded a compensation under different heads as below:

7. While coming to such conclusion, it held that though the neurological disability stated by PW2 is 51%, the functional disability is 10% and by adopting the ratio laid down in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another , [(2014) 14 SCC 396] , it awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and on account of permanent disability.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

9. On appeal being admitted, the Tribunal records have been secured and the ar