For minor motor accident victims with documented permanent disability, compensation should be assessed on a consolidated basis per standard judicial norms, rather than strictly employing the multiplier method used for adult income-earning claimants.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the minor claimant/injured in OP(MV) No.604 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, seeking enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 28.10.2012, while the minor claimant was moving through the Muthalamada- Nanniyode public road, a car bearing registration No.TME-1171 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the minor claimant and as a result, he fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant, represented by his mother, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,27,000/- which is limited to ₹4,00,000/-.

3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The claim against the first respondent was dismissed as per order dated 31.07.2015. The second respondent filed a written statement, contending that he was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident. He further contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the minor claimant while crossing the road. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a sum of ₹1,95,000/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. The claimant having attained majority, the same was recorded in I.A. No.3699 of 2016, and the guardian was discharged as per the order in I.A. No.3698 of 2016. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the minor claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured was aged 15 years at the time of accident and his whole body disability was assessed as 12%. 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 ₹1,95,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum and with proportionate costs, following the multiplier method.

6. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the age and disability of the appellant were accepted by the tribunal, and compensation was awarded taking into consideration the 12% whole body disability assessed in respect of the appellant. Since the appellant was only 15 years and his disability was assessed as 12%, the compensation ought to have been assessed following Master Mallikarjun (supra). Hence, following the judgment in Master Mallikarjun (supra), I hold that the appellant is entitled to a consolidated compensation of ₹3,00,000/-, in addition to the actual expenditure for transport to hospital, extra nourishment, damage to clothing, medical expenses and bystander expenses, totalling to an amount of ₹1,04,000/-.

7. Hence the appellant will be entitled for a total amount of ₹4,04,000/- (3,00,000 + 1,04,000) as compensation. Therefore, after deducting the compensation of ₹1,95,000/- already awarded by the tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹2,09,000/-.

8. Though the a