The court adjusted compensation based on the severity of injuries and suffering, ensuring adequate relief as per relevant statutes.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.531 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode 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 15.07.2011. The petitioner being minor aged 9 years, is represented by his father named Vinod. According to the petitioner, on 15.07.2011 at about 9.15 a.m., while he was going to school, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-51-B-2183, driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the petitioner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious 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.1,02,000/-.

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 the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A5 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.31,065/- 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. V.S. Chandrasekharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. P.K. Manojkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

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

“Type II open fracture both bones right leg”

11. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 14 days. However, no disability certificate was produced in this case. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation on the head ‘loss of disability’.

12. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.5000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side.

13. Considering the fact that in the accident the petitioner sustained fracture on both bones right leg, he was treated as IP for 14 days and he was plastered for a period of 5 weeks. I hold that the compensation awarded on the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities and extra nourishment are on the lower side and hence which are enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively.

14. The learned counsel further argued that because of the injury sustained by the child, his parents had to attend the child and as such they are also entitled to get reasonable compensation. Considering the facts, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the parents for the inconvenience caused to them.

15. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as th