Compensation for minors must avoid double counting for pain and suffering when disability compensation is awarded, ensuring fair assessment based on the nature of injuries.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court of Special District Judge), Dharmapuri in MCOP.No.789 of 2015, dated 13.09.2019, the appellant/Insurance Company has come by way of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. It is not in dispute that the injured minor Keerthika who is a 10^th standard school going child aged about 14 years suffered a fracture of left humorous bone and multiple injuries all over the body in a road accident that had occurred on 14.07.2015. The claimant filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The tribunal granted the compensation of Rs.5,54,500/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal the insurer of offending vehicle has filed this appeal.

3. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability. Therefore, facts necessary for deciding those questions are not discussed in this judgment.

4. Heard the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the papers.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that having awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under the head disability by following the Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited , reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 338, decided by the Apex Court, the Tribunal committed a serious error in awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony to the parents.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant would submit that having regard to the tender age of the victim, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same need not be interfered with. The learned counsel further submitted that due to the hospitalization and injury of the minor, parents of the injured suffered a loss and the tribunal was justifed in awarding of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony to the parents.

7. In Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another cited supra, the Apex Court, while considering the question of granting disability suffered by the minor observed as follows:

“12. 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 towards treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10 percent and upto 30 percent to the whole body, Rs.3,00,000; upto 60 percent, Rs.4,00,000/- upto 90 percent, Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90 percent, it should be Rs.6,00,000/-. For permanent disability upto 10 percent, it should be Rs.1,00,000/-, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick.”

8. In the case on hand, as per the disability certificate of Ex.X1 issued by Medical Board, the disability of minor was assessed at 20%, therefore, as per law laid down in Master Mallikarjun case, the Tribunal was justified in granting Rs.3,00,000/- under the head compensation for disability.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the fracture suffered by the minor was fused and the internal plate fixation was also removed and therefore, there is no possibility of injured suffering with any kind of inconvenience or disability. However, the Medical Board issued a certificate Ex.X1, assessing the disability of the minor at 20%. If the insurance company has got any quarrel over the disability assessed by the Medical Board, it should have taken steps before the Tribunal for seeking reassessment of the disability percentage. For the reason best known to it, t