Compensation for injuries must adequately reflect the severity of injuries and associated life impacts, including loss of educational opportunities.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.26/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.5.2009. According to the petitioner, on 31.5.2009 at about 11 a.m., while he was riding a bicycle, he was knocked down by a car driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner so that he sustained injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner, the 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.1,20,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11 series. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,450/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. N.S. Najeeb, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. At the time of the accident petitioner was aged 16 years and was a student, who passed SSLC. 11. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

“fracture of left frontal bone and mild cerebral oedema”

12. Petitioner was treated as inpatient for 17 days, in two spells.

In this case the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation on the head 'loss of disability'.

13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.7,500/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.1,700/- towards bystander expenses, and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation expenses'. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. Nothing was awarded towards 'extra nourishment'.

14. The petitioner sustained fracture of left frontal bone and mild cerebral oedema in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 17 days in two spells. Since the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate, no compensation can be awarded on the head 'loss of disability. Therefore, considering the entire facts, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'loss of amenities of life', bystander expenses' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs40,000/- Rs.25,000/-, Rs.3,500/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively.

15. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, who has passed SSLC was waiting for Plus One admission. Though the injuries sustained in the accident has affected his studies, nothing was awarded towards 'loss of study'. Considering the facts. R