Compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act must account for injuries and disabilities, especially for minors, ensuring fairness based on precedents.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred by the 3^rd respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.727/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, challenging the quantum of award on the ground that the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is exorbitant.

2. The case of the claimant in the O.P was that on 26.9.2008 at about 5.15 pm, while the claimant, then aged 14, was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL-6C-2180, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent, who was the driver of the bus, claimant was thrown out from the bus and the claimant sustained injuries in the accident. Second respondent is the RC owner of the said bus, and the 3^rd respondent is the insurer. Hence, he claimed compensation from R1 to R3 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act .

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex parte by the Tribunal.

4. 3^rd respondent filed written statement admitting the accident and the existence of a valid insurance policy for the offending vehicle. But it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. It was further contended that the compensation claimed under various heads are excessive.

5. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal granted a sum of ₹4,92,200/- as compensation with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

6. Appellant-insurance company challenges the award on the ground that the compensation awarded under the various heads is high and exorbitant. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the minor as ₹3,000/- without any evidence; that the Tribunal erred in awarding ₹18,000/- for loss of earnings, ₹40,000/- for pain and suffering, ₹1,00,000/- for loss of amenities while following the decision in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another [2014 (14) SCC 396] . It was further contended that, since the compensation under all other heads will include in the ₹3 lakhs awarded under the head loss of earning power, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the compensation only under the heads treatment expenses and other actual expenses.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the injured who was a minor aged 14 sustained grievous injuries and sustained 30% permanent disability and the Tribunal awarded compensation by taking into account all those factors and therefore, the compensation awarded is just and fair compensation and no interference is called for in the said award.

8. In view of the rival contentions, let us see whether the impugned award needs any interference by this Court.

9. It is an admitted case that the claimant then aged 14 met with a motor vehicle accident on 26.9.2008 and he sustained injuries in the said accident. The evidence on record would show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R1.

10. The medical records of the claimant would show that he sustained a comminuted fracture of mandible right parasymphysis left. Medical records also would reveal that debridement and fixation was done and he was treated as inpatient. Ext.A6 certificate would show that the claimant suffered 13% permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained.

11. According to the petitioner, he was doing sweet distribution in shops and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. He claimed an amount of ₹50,000/- under the head loss of earnings. The learned Tribunal found that in view of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant will not be in a position to do his job for a period of six months and therefore, by calculating his monthly income at the rate of ₹3,000/-,