Compensation for minors must adequately reflect sustained injuries and disabilities in accordance with established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.579 of

2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor.

The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on

12.06.2007, while he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-07-5094 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the first respondent took a sudden swerve, throwing the claimant inside the autorickshaw, with his leg protruding out and hitting at the iron post on the side of the road, resulting in serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹75,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 series and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹34,949/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured was aged 10 years at the time of the accident, however, the tribunal has not followed the judgment of the apex court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & another [ 2014 (14) SCC 396 ] and awarded only a total compensation of ₹34,949/- with interest @ 8% per annum without considering the disability sustained by the appellant.

6. On going through the impugned award, it is seen that the injured was a minor aged 10 years, who sustained 5% disability as per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Since the appellant was only 10 years at the time of the accident and sustained 5% disability, I find that he will be entitled to get a consolidated compensation of ₹1,00,000/- as held in Master Mallikarjun (supra) in addition to the medical expenses and attendant charges. Thus, the compensation already awarded by the tribunal under different heads, other than towards medical expenses and attendant expenses, is deleted.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant underwent inpatient treatment for 18 days, whereas the tribunal granted attendant expenses only for five days. Relying on Ext.A8 series of medical bills, it is further submitted that the appellant was treated as inpatient from 12.06.2007 to 25.06.2007 and from 05.09.2008 to 09.09.2008, totalling to 18 days. I have gone through the bills and am convinced that the injured had undergone 18 days’ inpatient treatment. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award to the appellant a total amount of ₹2,700/- towards attendant expenses, entitling the appellant to get an additional compensation of ₹1,950/- for attendant expenses.

8. Since the appeal is of the year 2014, I fix the interest on the enhanced compensation @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: