Compensation for minors in accident cases should align with established precedents, reflecting fair and just compensation.

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.305/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kasaragod are the appellants herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, by the parents of a child by name Jalaluddeen, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.5.2011. According to them, on 13.5.2011, at about 4.30 p.m., while the child was playing in front of his house, he went near to the road side to pick up the ball. At that time, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-14H-6141 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the child and he sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on

14.5.2011.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.18,77,000/- limited to Rs.13,00,000/-.

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 A9. 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.3,99,415/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners 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. K.P. Harish, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Smt. Deepa George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

11. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the child was less than six years at the time of the accident. The date of birth shown in the claim petition is 19.2.2006. Therefore, at the time of the accident on 13.05.2011 the child has completed only five years. Therefore, as argued by the learned counsel for the insurer, as per the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Assainar [2019 (4) KLT 39], the consolidated sum of compensation payable till the year is Rs.240,000/- and thereafter a further sum of Rs.12000/- is to be added for every succeeding year. Since, in this case the accident was in the year 2011, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency will come to only Rs.4,32,000/-(240000+12000×16).

12. In the decision in Kusmi Devi v. Md. Kasim & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.3699/2023 decided on 15.5.2023) in the case of death of a three year old child, involved in an accident in the year 1994, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- including sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground of global enhancement. Since the compensation payable as per the decision in Kusmi Devi (supra) is more than what can be paid under Assainar (supra), the petitioners are entitled to get the higher amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. In addition to the same, they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.51,315/- spent towards medical treatment.

13. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants