2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2586 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.05.2017 IN OPMV NO.194 OF 2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MANJERI APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SABU.M.K(MINOR) AGED 11 YEARS 11 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/FATHER, UNNI M.K., 44 YEARS, S/O.CHAMI, MOOTHEDATHUKUNNU HOUSE, PATHAPPIRIYAM P.O.,PANTHAPPALLI, VIA. EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676123. BY ADV SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 MAJEED.V.P S/O.MOHAMMED, VALIYAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, PATHAPPIRIYAM P.O., VAYANASALA, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676123. 2 KANNAN M. S/O.MARICHAMI, SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN,PULLIKANAM P.O., ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685503. 3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, A.M.BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD, CHETTIYANGADI, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679329. 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 3 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.194/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.12.2013. According to the petitioner, on 16.12.2013 at about 3.30 p.m., while he was walking back to his home from the school, a jeep bearing reg.no.KL-05/A-2259 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and the wheel of the jeep ran over his right foot. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries and his right leg at the level of ankle joint was amputated. 3. The 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 4 Rs.35,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A9 and X1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,04,909.15 rounded off to Rs.8,05,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. Heard Sri.K.Vidyasagar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 10. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 5 the petitioner is that the Tribunal was not justified in limiting the notional income of the child at Rs.24,000/- per year. The learned counsel for the insurer would submit that since the victim was a child of 9 years at the time of the accident, compensation is to be awarded as per the decision in Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd 2013 ACJ 2445. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that considering the severity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this is to be taken as an exceptional case to Master Mallikarjun (supra). 11. It is true that in this case because of the injuries sustained, the petitioner’s right leg at the level of ankle joint was to be amputated. He has to undergo four surgeries and more required for correcting the disability sustained in the accident. In the above circumstance, this is to be taken as an exceptional case, as the compensation that could be awarded by applying the dictum laid down in the decision Master Mallikarjun(supra) will not be just and reasonable compensation, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 12. At the time of the accident the victim was a child of 9 years and a school going student. The Tribunal has fixed his monthly notional income at Rs.2000/-. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner as per the 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 6 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2013 will come to Rs.9000/- and as such his notional income is fixed at Rs.9000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability. 13. In the accident the petitioner sustained very serious injuries. He was admitted as inpatient in Baby Memorial hospital with crush injury right foot at the ankle joint level with fracture of shaft of tibia right mid-distal 1/3. The tarsal bones were crushed and exposed. He was treated with wound debridement and amputation at the ankle joint level. The doctors found that there was loss of ankle mortis, partial loss of distal end of tibia and fibula with significant loss of talus and calcaneum. The wounds were extensively contaminated. Skin flap was used to cover the amputation stump. On 19-12- 2013 the bone stump was cut with jigsaw and on 21-12-2013 fracture reduction was done by using forceps He remained as an inpatient in that hospital for 13 days from 16-12-2013 to 28-12-2013. Subsequently he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital Manjeri for 12 days from 10-04- 2015 το 21-04-2015 for DCP removal. Again he was admitted in KMCT, medical college, Mukkom for 5 days from 15-01-2016 to 19-01-2016. 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 7 Osteochondroma of lower fibula was removed during this hospitalisation. 14. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 55% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 55%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 9 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 15, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.12,47,400/-. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/-. Towards 'disfigurement' Rs.30,000/- was awarded and towards 'Loss of enjoyment of childhood' Rs.50,000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 8 on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 30 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head ‘pain and sufferings’ is on the lower side and hence it is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. 18. The compensation awarded on the head 'disfigurement' and 'Loss of enjoyment of childhood' taken together will come to Rs.80,000/-. Considering the fact that in the accident the petitioner’s right leg at the ankle joint level was to be amputated and he suffered 55% permanent physical disability, I hold that towards Loss amenities including 'disfigurement' and 'Loss of enjoyment of childhood' a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- can be awarded. 19. Towards ‘future treatment’ the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1.25,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has to change the prosthesis according to the growth of the trunk of the leg, for which huge amount will be required. It is true that the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove the expenditure in that respect. However, it is common 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 9 knowledge that in case any amputation, the victim will definitely require the support of prosthesis for moving around. Therefore, he is entitled to get reasonable compensation towards the cost of prosthesis and as such Rs.5,00,000/- claimed on that head is not at all on the higher side. Therefore, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded towards ‘future treatment’, out of which Rs.3,75,000/- will carry interest only from the date of this judgment. 20. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 21. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.22,90,310/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of earning to the parents 72000 72000 2 Transport to hospital 8340 8340 3 Extra nourishment 7500 7500 4 Damage to clothing and articles 500 500 5 Bystander expense 10500 10500 6 Medical expense 144069.15 144069.15 7 Pain and suffering 60000 150000 8 Permanent disability and loss of education 297000 1247400 2025:KER:23578 MACA NO.2586 OF 2017 10 9 Compensation for disfigurement 30000 1,50,000 Loss of amenities Nil Compensation for loss of enjoyment of childhood 50000 12 Future medical expense 125000 5,00,000 Total 804909.15 (rounded to Rs.8,05,000) 22,90,309.15 (rounded to Rs.22,90,310) Enhanced Rs. 1485310 22. 1485310 22. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.22,90,310/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 475 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%. Out of which, Rs.3,75,000/- will carry interest only from the date of this judgment) On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE Pvv