IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN C.M.A.No.365 of 2021 Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on

26.03.2024 08.04.2024 Minor Joshina Rep.by her next friend/guardian /father Arumugam ... Appellant Vs.

1.Manikumar

2.The Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., New No.24, Old No.302, LIC Colony Road, Salem – 636 004

3.Prakash

4.New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sathivel Complex, Mangalam Road, Samalapuram Post, Tiruppur Taluk, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree in MCOP No.830 of 2018 dated 16.10.2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge No.I), Salem.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Paraneedharan For R1, R3 & R4 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.S.Arunkumar

JUDGMENT

The claim petitioner is the appellant herein seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MCOP No.830 of 2018 dated 16.10.2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge No.I), Salem.

2. The factum of accident, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent and the vehicle being insured with the second respondent/insurance company, the validity of the insurance company nd the injuries sustained in the road transport accident are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings rendered by the Trial Court with regard to negligence are hereby confirmed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claim petitioner contended that the appellant was aged 8 years at the time of accident and she was studying 2^nd standard in S.K.V. Matriculation School , Kandampalayam. For the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant is taking treatment till date and her right leg has been shortened about 7 cm than left leg after surgery and that she has to undergo further surgery for shortening the left leg so as to equal to the right leg which would cost about Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, prayed for awarding compensation towards future medical expenses.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurance company made his submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. On the point of quantum of compensation, heard the counsel for the appellant as well as second respondent and perused the materials on record. Though notice has been served on the respondents 1, 3 & 4 and their names have been printed in the cause list, none appeared for them.

6. Before the Tribunal, the father of the appellant/claim petitioner examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P18. No oral and documentary evidence were adduced on the side of the respondents. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Salem was marked as Ex.C1

7. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Kajal vs.Jagdish Chand and others has fixed the notional income of the appellant as Rs.4846/- per month, awarded 40% future prospects and applied multiplier 18 as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 and SARLA VERMA & OTHER v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC (1) SC.

8. On perusal of Ex.C1- disability certificate it is seen that the appellant had suffered 95% permanent disability and it is specifically mentioned therein that the appellant had suffered hemiparesus and non- functional right lower limb with shortening and there was shortening of height on the right leg and right knee below knee position had suffered non- functional and also learning attitude deficiency has been noticed and thus the Medical Board has assessed the permanent disability of the appellant as

90%.

9. Taking note of the permanent disability suffered by the party in the claim