In motor accident claims involving minors with permanent disability, assessment of just compensation must account for the tender age of the victim, psychological trauma, loss of future amenities, and actual medical needs, overriding the requirement for strict documentary evidence of every expense.

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.02.2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.2755 of 2011.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record are as under:

a) The claimant, a minor at the relevant time, represented by his father and natural guardian, filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 26.11.2007 at about 9.00 Am while he was crossing the road, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 24 V 1224 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed dashed against him. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was permanently disabled. It is further alleged that since the accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

b) It was further alleged that at the time of the accident, the claimant was hale, healthy and a brilliant student. The father of the claimant stated to have incurred substantial medical expenses. Therefore, the claimant claimed compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. However, the respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the manner of the accident, and disputing the involvement of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that the injuries sustained by the claimant were simple in nature. Respondent No.2 also raised a specific plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.2 further denied the ownership of respondent No.1 in respect of the offending vehicle and the existence of a valid policy covering the vehicle as on the date, time and the place of accident. It was also reiterated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Respondent No.2/Insurance company also contended that the claim made by the claimant was excessive and disproportionate and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Evidence before the learned Tribunal:

6. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the claimant examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1 (copy of insurance policy) was marked.

Findings of the learned Tribunal:

7. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the rival pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident in question occurred due to the involvement of the offending vehicle. However, while assessing the claim for compensation, the learned Tribunal took note of the nature of injuries and other attending circumstances and ultimately passed the impu