Determination of compensation in minor injury cases must consider established jurisprudence and the specifics of each case, emphasizing tailored assessment over strict adherence to precedent.

JUDGMENT

Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 19.03.2016 in O.P.(MV) No.1185 of 2013 on the file of the additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A. No.2934 of 2016 is filed by the claimant in the original petition, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas M.A.C.A. No.1474 of 2017 is filed by the 2^nd respondent/insurer, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 11.09.2011 at about

11.30 a.m., while the minor claimant was walking along the roadside, from Kolathara to Mordern, a car bearing Reg. No.KL-11- AJ-5771, owned and driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant. As a result of the accident, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹6,48,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement admitting the accident but denying the negligence attributed to him. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the minor and the amount of compensation is exorbitant and exaggerated. The 2^nd respondent insurer also filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 and C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded an amount of ₹4,14,070/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the 2^nd respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the insurer and; the claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, have come up with the above appeals.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and and the learned standing counsel for the insurance company.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal while awarding compensation, did not follow the judgment in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co.Ltd and another [ (2014) 14 SCC 396 ], as the injured was a minor aged 12 years at the time of the accident. If the tribunal had considered Mallikarjua (supra) the total compensation payable excluding medical expenses would be ₹3,00,000/-.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/

appellant, on the other hand, submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is reasonable. However, no compensation was awarded towards loss of studies.

Even if the principle laid down in Mallikarjun (supra) is applied by this court, the difference in the award will be minimal when compared to the award passed by the tribunal. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the amounts awarded under the different heads by the tribunal is just and reasonable. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, both appeals stand dismissed.

Sd/-