ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Sreenivasan M.Y, learned counsel for appellant as well as Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy N.A, learned counsel who represents Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2.

2. A boy by name Suhas met with a road traffic accident in the year 2017 at the age of 14 years. He sustained grievous head injury and as per the material available on record, took extensive treatment. His father filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysore which dealt with the matter as M.V.C. No.389/2018, on 7.12.2020 passed award holding that the compensation that the injured is entitled to is Rs.3,05,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved by the sum awarded, this appeal is filed.

4. Sri.Sreenivasan M.Y, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained injury to the head and the said injury resulted in damage to the brain. Despite best treatment, he is still suffering with head ache and allied physical disabilities. His intellectual levels have come down. Though PW-2 stated that the appellant requires treatment and rehabilitation, the tribunal solely basing on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun -vs- Divisional Manager, Civil Appeal No.7139/13, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396=AIR 2014 SC 736, awarded a global sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation apart from Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenditure. Learned counsel states that the appellant requires huge amount for future medical expenditure and that apart, due to the decreased intellectual ability he is suffering a lot and for that sufferance he should be compensated.

5. The submission that is made by Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy N.A learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the otherhand is that the impugned order is based on sound reasons and therefore the award needs no interference.

6. The tribunal extracted the deposition of PW-2 at para 21 of the impugned order which is as under:-

"Repeat computed tomogram brain done on

23.08.2017 was normal. Patient was asymptomatic, conscious, moving with support. He was discharged on 23.08.2017 with proper advise. Patient was treated with antiedema, antibiotic, antiepileptic and neuroprotective medications.

Patient has come for regular follow up. Last when patient had come for follow up on 26.12.2019, he complained of swaying of gait. On examination right hand tremor moderate with ataxia present. He was subjected for computed tomogram brain, Electroencephalogram and Neuropsychologist opinion. EEH was abnormal s/o epileptiform discharge from both centro-parietal regions. Neuropsychologist opined borderline level of intellectual disability and social quotient of 74.

Ataxia detected on examination-40%.

Patient requires psycho education and neuropsychological rehabilation.

In my view this patient has suffered from grievous injury. He has 54% disability. He has 15% of chances of developing post traumatic epilepsy".

7. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-2 regarding the disability of the appellant as narrated above. PW-2 has clearly stated that there are 15% chances of developing post traumatic epilepsy. He also deposed that the appellant requires psycho education and neuropsychological rehabilitation. Admittedly, the appellant is required to spend certain amount for the said purpose. The judgment that is relied upon i.e., the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun case nowhere states that the amount mentioned therein should not be exceeded. In appropriate cases were the circumstances require granting of additional sum towards rehabilitation and treatment the tribunals can do so.

8. Here is a case where sufficient proof is produced that further treatment is required for the appellant. Also having considered the fact that due to the injury to the brain, the appellant would not be in a position to perform his duties and act as normal person, this Court considers desirable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for future medica