Compensation for permanent disability must align with statutory principles, ensuring just outcomes for minors in motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant in O.P (MV)

No.140/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(hereinafter referred to as “tribunal”), Ottapalam, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 01.12.2014 at about 9.15 a.m., while the claimant then aged 9 was travelling as a pillion rider of a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-49-2543 through Vandazhy-Mangalam dam public road, a pickup van bearing Reg. No.KL-49-3165 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle and as a result of which the claimant sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent, who was the driver of the pickup van. The 2^nd respondent is the registered owner of the offending van. The 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement, admitting the insurance policy, but challenging the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant.

4. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and materials on record, awarded a compensation of ₹36,460/- under various heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is meager and it is not a just compensation. It was further contended that the Tribunal failed to follow the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd and another [(2014) 14 SCC 396]. Though the claimant, who was a minor at the time of the accident, sustained permanent disability, which is assessed as 5%, the Tribunal failed to award any amount under the head permanent disability on the ground that the doctor was not examined to prove Ext.A10 disability certificate. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded ₹1 lakh under the said head, following Mallikarjun’s case (cited supra).

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent-insurance company contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore, there are no reasons to enhance the compensation.

7. It is an undisputed fact that on 1.12.2014 at about 9.15 am, while the claimant who was then aged 9 years, was travelling as a pillion rider of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-49- 2543, a pick-up van bearing registration No.KL-49-3165 driven by the 1^st respondent hit on the motorcycle and in the said accident claimant sustained injuries. It also stands established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent, who was the driver of the pick-up van bearing registration No.KL-49-3165. Exts.A8 and A9 would show that the claimant sustained the following injuries:-

i) Cerebral concussion ii) Abrasion over ® hand and leg.

The claimant had undergone treatment as an inpatient for two days. The claimant has produced Ext.A10 disability certificate to the effect that she sustained permanent disability of 5%.

8. In paragraph 12 of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another [2014 (14) SCC 396] the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle