J U D G M E N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant who was a school going child, aged 9 years at the time of the accident seeks enhancement of compensation of ‘

1,62,000/- awarded to her by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 01.01.1993.

2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was established that the Appellant’s left leg was crushed by the offending truck No.DLL-144. She suffered injuries on other parts of the body and was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital where she remained admitted initially for a period of 13 months and thereafter for another period of three months. Her left leg was plastered.

Subsequently, plastic surgery was also carried out.

4. The Appellant was issued a permanent disability certificate to the extent of 25% in respect of the left lower limb on account of the contraction of left knee joint.

‘

5. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of 1,62,000/-

which is tabulated hereunder:-

6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that considering the Appellant who was aged just 9 years has to live with the stiff knee throughout her life, the compensation awarded is very meager. It is urged that the Appellant was under treatment for a period of about three years. The compensation awarded towards conveyance, special diet and expenditure on medicines is very low.

7. Since the Appellant was only 9 years old, it would be difficult to say as to how the permanent disability would impact her earning capacity. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, took the ‘

notional income of 15,000/- to award compensation, taking 25% permanent disability in respect of the left lower limb as the disability vis-à-vis the whole body.

8. The minimum wages of a Matriculate on the date of the ‘

accident were 1342/- per month that is just about 15,000/- per annum. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding ‘

compensation of 56,250/- towards loss of earning capacity, which I hold to be adequate and reasonable.

9. The Appellant received treatment in Hindu Rao Hospital, run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The treatment in the hospital was completely free. The Appellant did not produce any evidence with regard to any expenditure in respect of the treatment. The Claims Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and the period of prolonged treatment awarded a sum of ‘

10,000/- under this head, which considering that the accident took place in the year 1993 cannot be said to be on the lower side.

10. No evidence was led with regard to the amount spent on special diet. Again considering the long duration of the treatment, the ‘

amount of 10,000/- awarded appears to be just and reasonable.

11. The Appellant was resident of Sahibabad and the treatment was received in Hindu Rao Hospital. The Appellant’s relations must have made a large number of visits to the hospital. Even after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant made several visits to the hospital as an outdoor patient. Although, no cogent evidence was produced with regard to the actual expenditure on conveyance, yet, in the circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded under this head is increased from ‘ ‘

10,000/- to 15,000/-.

‘

12. The Claims Tribunal awarded a consolidated sum of 50,000/-

towards loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and disfigurement.

13. The Appellant would always have difficulty in walking, running and squatting etc. etc. In the circumstances, the Appellant was ‘

entitled to a sum of 5