MACA 3297/2015 1 2025:KER:28894 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 3297 OF 2015 OPMV NO.440 OF 2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT FATHIMA SUNHA U. (MINOR) AGED 2 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMED U, DATE OF BIRTH: 15.9.2011, REPRESENTED BY FATHER MUHAMMED, S/O.ABOOBACKER, UCHAKAVIL HOUSE, P.O.PANNIKODE, MUKKAM VIA, KOZHIKODE. PIN-673 602. BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SRI.SHRIKUMAR G (Sr.) SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.3.2025, THE COURT ON 4.4.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 3297/2015 2 2025:KER:28894 JUDGMENT Dated : 4th April, 2025 The 2nd respondent in OP(MV).440/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner was a two year old child represented by her mother. According to the petitioner on 17.10.2013 at about 7.25 p.m, while the minor along with her mother was travelling in a motor cycle, a bus bearing registration No.KL10-Z-7375 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle and as a result of which the child sustained injuries. 3. In the accident the child sustained degloving injury on the right eyebrow exposing the under lying tissue which has resulted in disfigurement. The 1st respondent is the insured and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the bus. 4. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent is that though in the accident the minor child sustained only minor injuries, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.17,65,000/- and major portion of the same is for providing the service of a Care taker to the child till she attains majority. According to the learned counsel, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too much on the higher side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner supported the Award of the Tribunal. 5. In this case, the minor child has sustained only minor injuries.. No disability certificate has been produced by the petitioner. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 2014 (14) MACA 3297/2015 3 2025:KER:28894 SCC, 396, the compensation payable to the child towards non pecuniary heads is only Rs.1,00,000/- as the disability suffered by the victim is less than 10%. In addition to the same, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of motherly care, Rs.30,000/- towards disfigurement and Rs.14,28,000/- towards expenses for a Care taker. 6. In this case, the minor child is represented by its mother who sustained very serious injuries in the very same accident. The claim petition filed by the mother namely, OP 444/2014 was also tried by the Tribunal jointly along with the present OP. In the claim petition filed by the mother, the Tribunal found that she sufferer 100% functional disability and has awarded the expenses of a bystander as she could not even move without the assistance of a bystander. It was in the above context that the Tribunal holding that the child lost the service of its mother, awarded a sum of Rs.14,28,000/- towards expenses for providing a Care taker. Since in the accident, the minor child sustained only minor injuries, I hold that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.14,28,000/- to the child towards the expenses of a Care taker. It is true that in the accident, the mother of the child is seriously injured and is completely bedridden. As per the decision in Master Mallikarjun (supra), the compensation payable on all pecuniary heads, for victims who suffered disability upto 10% is only Rs.1,00,000/-, and hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head 'loss of motherly care' is also not permissible. At the same time, for the parents of the child for their sufferings in looking after the child, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as similar amount was awarded by the Apex Court in the decision in Master Mallikarjun. At the same time, Rs.5000/- awarded on the head pain and suffering is liable to be deducted. Since the child suffered disfigurement, Rs.30,000.- awarded for dis-figuration is retained. In MACA 3297/2015 4 2025:KER:28894 short, the total compensation payable to the petitioner is Rs.1,32,000/- (1,00,000 + 30,000 + 2000), as shown in the table given below Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount given in Appeal Transport to hospital 2000 2000 Pain and sufferings 5000 nil Loss of motherly care 300000 Nil Disfigurement due to the scar on the Rt.Eyebrow 30000 30000 Expenses for care taker till attainment of the age of majority 1428000 Nil For the sufferings of the parents in looking after the child Nil 25000 Disability Nil 100000 Total 1765000 1,57,000 Amount reduced 16,08,000/- 7. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. The compensation payable to the petitioner is reduced to Rs.1,57,000/-. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit Rs.1,57,000/- along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, within a period of two months from today. 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 Mrcs/19.3.