SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
ARAFATH – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA – Respondent
MACA 671/2015



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
For the Respondents: SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)

Compensation for minors in motor accident cases must account for age and disability, with reference to established precedents.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Appeal against the award dated 26.06.2009 - The appellant was a minor aged 11 years who sustained injuries in a motor accident. The tribunal awarded ₹21,050/- as compensation, which was challenged for being inadequate. The court considered the disability certificate and the precedent set in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another [2014 SCC 396] to modify the compensation to ₹1,06,050/- with interest @8% from the date of petition till realization. (Paras 5, 6, 8)

(B) Minor's Compensation - The court emphasized the need to consider the minor's age and disability in determining fair compensation, leading to a revised award. (Paras 5, 6)

Table of Content
1. court's observations on compensation adjustment based on established precedents. (Para 4 , 6)
2. arguments regarding the inadequacy of the awarded compensation. (Para 5)
3. final ruling on the modified compensation amount. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant in O.P (MV) No.746 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur.

The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 12.08.2004 at about

04.45 pm, while the petitioner was walking through Chavakkad Ponnani public road, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-10/M- 8241 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,05,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal.

The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondent. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹21,034/- rounded to ₹21,050/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondent-insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured was aged 11 years and the percentage of disability assessed was 4%. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel is that while awarding compensation, the tribunal has not considered the disability certificate nor the judgment in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. &

Another [2014 SCC 396].

6. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that there is no discussion about the aforementioned judgment. Considering the fact that the injured was a minor aged 11 years and his percentage of disability is less than 10%, I find that it is appropriate to award consolidated compensation of ₹1,00,000 following the judgment in Master Mallikarjun (supra)

7. On perusal of the award, it is seen that compensation of ₹10,000/- and ₹5,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal towards pain and suffering and discomfort. Since, I am inclined to award a consolidated amount of ₹1,00,000/-, the compensation awarded under the heads pain and sufferings and discomfort are deducted. Thus, there will be a deduction of ₹15,000/- from the amount of ₹1,00,000/-. Accordingly, I find that the appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of ₹85,000/-.

8. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:-

Sl. No Head of Claim Amount awarded by the tribunal Modified in appeal Total compensation
1 Loss of earnings Nil Nil Nil
2 Transport to hospital 750 (not modified) 750
3 Extra nourishment 1500 (not modified) 1500
4 Damage to clothing 500 (not modified) 500
5 Treatment expenses 1284 (not modified) 1284
6 Bystander expenses 2000 (not modified) 2000
7 Pain and sufferings 10,000 85,000 1,00,000
8 Compensation for discomfiture 5000
TOTAL 21,034 rounded to 21,050 85,000 1,06,034 rounded to 1,06,050
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of ₹85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top