P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. Whether a 'still born child' in the womb of the mother can be treated as an individual, to be awarded compensation pursuant to the death occurred in a road traffic accident; is the question mooted in this case. By virtue of the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rasheed, 2004 (3) K.L.T. 552, it was held that such a situation can result only in loss on injury and that compensation can be awarded, as if it were an 'injury case'; whereas another Division Bench in Manikuttan v. Baby, 2008 (4) K.L.T. 539 has held that the foetus has to be reckoned as a living child and compensation has to be given accordingly.

2. Apparently, the conflicting views taken by the two Division Benches as above, made a subsequent co-ordinate Bench to doubt the correctness of the legal proposition, leading to the order dated 28-5-2015 referring the same to be considered by a Full Bench. The matter is listed accordingly.

3. Heard Sri V. Krishna Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as well as Smt. Deepa George, learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent Insurance Company, at length.

4. The first appellant/husband of the second appellant, was riding a motor cycle bearing No. KL-57-1939 from Ramanattukara to Kuttikattoor with the second appellant/wife on the pillion on 10-10-2006. While so, on reaching near the place of occurrence, a car bearing No. KL 53F-9200 owned, driven and insured by the respondents I to 3 respectively dashed against the motor cycle from behind, causing serious injuries. The second appellant/wife externally sustained only some minor injuries, but impact of the hit was so hard that she lost the child in her womb at the advanced stage of pregnancy, having completed 'eight months'. The loss of foetus was due to 'abruptio placenta' and the position is revealed from the contents of Ext. A-2 postmortem certificate issued by the doctor concerned. This led to the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants before the Tribunal, seeking for compensation including for the loss of baby, which was estimated and limited to Rs. 2 lakhs.

5. The owner and driver of the car did not contest the matter seriously, though they had filed a written statement admitting the ownership of the car, but disputing negligence. Written statement was filed from the part of the Insurance Company as well, disputing the negligence and injuries; besides challenging the quantum of compensation claimed, at the same time admitting the policy. No oral evidence was adduced on either side and the only evidence consists of the documents produced from the part of the claimants as Ext. A-1 and A-2. Based on the available materials, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and proceeded to fix the compensation accordingly.

6. The factual sequences have noted by the Tribunal, particularly, with regard to the Toss of baby', who was nearly eight months and the adverse consequences resulted because of the accident, as revealed from the records. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 300 towards transport to hospital, a sum Rs. 1,000 towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for the loss of baby; thus granting a total compensation of Rs. 51,300. This was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition, till satisfaction, in turn mulcting the liability upon the shoulders of the Insurance Company.

7. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not challenged the finding or reasoning rendered by the Tribunal or the quantum of compensation awarded. The claimants have approached this Court by fling this appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation, stating that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal for the Toss of baby' is abysmally on the lower side.

8. When the matter came up for