IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946 MACA NO. 3132 OF 2017 OPMV NO.1337 OF 2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER BIMAL, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. MADHUKUTTAN,KULATHIL PUTHENVELI,WARD NO.3 PUNNAPRA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, PUNNAPRA P.O.

BY ADVS.

SMT.P.K.PAMALA SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

1 RAJU P. JOY S/O JOSEPH,PADINJARE PARAMBIL HOUSE, WARD NO.VIII,THAKAZHY PANCHAYATH,KELAMANGALAM 2 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

BRANCH NO.111,SHARANYA,GROUND FLOOR,HOSPITAL ROAD,ERNAKULAM BY ADV P.K.SANTHAMMA-SC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 7.2.2025, THE COURT ON 13.2.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated : 13^th February, 2025 The petitioner in OP(MV).1337/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha is the appellant. The petitioner filed this OP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('M.V.Act' for short) claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.7.2009.

2. The petitioner was a 11 year old child at the time of the accident.

According to the petitioner, on 21.7.2009 at about 10.30 a.m while he was riding pillion on a scooter through the National Highway near Paravoor junction, a Santro car bearing registration No.KL-4/X 7543 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the scooter and as a result of which, the petitioner and the rider fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. In the accident, the petitioner suffered a crush injury on his left knee with a fracture of femur and artery along with multiple lacerations and scamental loss of fibula with vascular injury. Due to the severity of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, his left leg had to be amputated below the knee. As per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the medical board of Medical College hospital, Alappuzha, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner was assessed as 60%. One among the members of the Medical Board was examined as PW1 and he opined that though the petitioner may not have any problems in attending office works, since his left knee was amputated below the knee, he cannot engage himself in any job which requires physical exercise.

4. The Tribunal assessed the loss of disability of the petitioner as Rs.5,40,000/- assuming that his notional income including future prospects is Rs.5000/-. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.8,04,800/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

5. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notional income of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Smt.P.K.Santhamma would argue that since the victim was aged 11 years and the percentage of disability is 60%, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. &

Another, 2013 ACJ 2445, the compensation on the head 'loss of disability' that could be awarded was only Rs.4,00,000/-. It was argued that in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded more than what is due to the petitioner and as such, there is no scope for any interference in the Award passed by the Tribunal.

6. It is true that as per the decision in Mallikarjun (supra) in the case of children below 15 years of age, unless there is exceptional circumstances, the dictum laid down in the above decision is to be followed. In the instant case, though the victim is a 11 years old boy, on the date of accident, he sustained very serious injuries and due to the severity of the injuries, his left leg below the knee had to be amputated. The Medical Board assessed his permanent physical disability at 60%. In the above circumstances, the present c