MACA. No.2951/2016 1 2025:KER:18773 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. 2951 OF 2016 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN OPMV NO.1193 OF 2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , PALAKKAD APPELLANT/PETITIONER: BINEESH @ VINEESH AGED 20 YEARS, S/O SREEDHARAN, PATTUKAD HOUSE, KAIRADY P.O, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT: ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. SHOBA, TSM COMPLEX, RS ROAD, PALAKKAD (INSURER OF JEEP REG.NO.KL9/B-3545) POLICY NO.442000/31/2009/10895 VALID FROM 20-11-2007 TO 19-11-2008 BY ADV SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA. No.2951/2016 2 2025:KER:18773 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 5th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1193/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad is the appellant herein. He was a 13 year old minor child at the time of the accident. (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 9.11.2008. According to the petitioner, on 9.11.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., while he was riding a bicycle, he was knocked down by a jeep driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner and thereby he sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver MACA. No.2951/2016 3 2025:KER:18773 of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.1,00,000/- 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11 series 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.20,400/- 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? MACA. No.2951/2016 4 2025:KER:18773 9. Heard Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. S.K. Ajay Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. 11. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “mild limitation of dorsiflexion of the left wrist.” 12. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate issued by the medical board, the petitioner suffered 1% permanent physical disability. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 1%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 13. Since on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 13 years, the compensation is to be fixed on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another [(2014) 14 SCC 396]. As MACA. No.2951/2016 5 2025:KER:18773 per the said decision, the compensation payable in case of disability upto 10% is Rs.1,00,000/-. In the above circumstances towards non- pecuniary heads, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.900/- towards by stander expenses, Rs.750/- towards transportation, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, are on the lower side. 15. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for nine days. Therefore, compensation under the heads bystander expenses, 'transportation' and 'extra nourishment' are enhanced to Rs.2,000/- each. In the above circumstances, Rs.7,500/- awarded on pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- on the head 'loss of amenities' will be deducted. 16. Considering the fact that the petitioner was treated as inpatient for nine days, the parents of the petitioner are entitled to get reasonable compensation for the discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded on the above head. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other MACA. No.2951/2016 6 2025:KER:18773 heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.117,250/-, 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 Medical expenses 1,000/- 1,000/- 2 Bystander 900/- 2,000/- 3 Damage to clothing etc. 250/- 250/- 4 Transportation 750/- 2,000/- 5 Extra nourishment Nil 2,000/- 6 Pain and suffering 7,500/- Nil 7 Loss of amenities of life 10,000/- Nil 8 Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization Nil 10,000/- 9 Loss of disability, etc. Nil 100000 Total 20,400/- 117,250/- Amount enhanced- 96850 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.117,250/- (Rupees one lakh MACA. No.2951/2016 7 2025:KER:18773 seventeen thousand two hundred and fifty 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 315 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 20. 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 sou.