The court emphasized that compensation for a minor victim of a motor vehicle accident must be just and reasonable, reflecting the severity of injuries and lifelong dependency, irrespective of prior admissions by counsel.

JUDGMENT :

Kumari Sumisha, a minor girl aged 7, who suffered 70% neurological disability and 70% orthopedic disability, whose four limbs are function-less because of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.7.2006 and who has been admitted in an orphanage as she lost her parents in the meantime, is before this Court in appeal, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. On 30.7.2006 at about 10.00 a.m., while the child was going through the western side of Kuttanellur-paliakkara NH bypass, a car bearing registration No.KL07/BC-5811 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a most rash and negligent manner and in high speed, hit her down and as a result of which she sustained severe head injury. The child was rushed to the Jubilee Mission hospital, Thrissur and was treated as inpatient for a total period of 77 days. The 1^st respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending motor vehicle.

3. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the accident and valid insurance policy. However, it was contended that the vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner.

4. The evidence in the case consists of Exts.A1 to A11, X1 and B1. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent and assessed a compensation of Rs.11,54,519/- but limited to Rs.1104550/- and directed the 3^rd respondent/insurer to pay the same. Since the Tribunal found that the vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate, the Tribunal permitted the 3^rd respondent to recover the amount from the 1^st respondent.

5. Heard Sri. A.R. Nimod, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. A.A. Mohammed Nazir, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

6. In the light of the arguments advanced by both sides, the following points arise for consideration :

1) Is not a victim of road accident, staying in an orphanage, entitled to get compensation in par with others?

2) Whether an admission made by the counsel can stand in the way of awarding just compensation to the victim?

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

7. Point No.1 :- In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager when compared to the injuries sustained by the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel would argue that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and no enhancement is called for.

8. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries :

Severe head injury, seizures, left temporo parietal acute subdural haematoma, sub arachnoid haemorrhage, brain stem contusion, fracture left occipital, fracture left temporal, fracture left orbital roof, maxillary hemosinus, fracture both bones of left forearm, derubins upper/external otitis + condidal intertrigo.

9. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has been completely bedridden and unable to move from the bed, as her all four limbs are function-less. As per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, her neurological disability was assessed as 70% and orthopedic disability was assessed as 70%. The Tribunal has taken her notional income as Rs.2000/-, adopted a multiplier of 18 and assessed the compensation as stated above, without adding any future prospects.

10. After the ill-fated accident on 30.07.2006, the child lost her mother in 2009 and her father in 2020, leaving her sister Smt. Subisha as the only relative. As per order in I.A.1/2025 the sister of the petitioner Subisha was appointed as her next friend. Since her sister Subisha is living along