IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 227 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.182/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MIDHUN, S/O.PIOUS VARGHESE, (DOB: 28.12.1989) MANGALY HOUSE, VATHAKKATTU, THURAVOOR, ANGAMALY(BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, AS NEXT FRIEND LITTY PIOUS). BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 023. 2. ANTU, S/O.DEVASSY, NEELAMGAVIL HOUSE, THOLOOR VILLAGE, PARAPPUR KARAYIL, TRICHUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC FOR R1 SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT R.BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. Through his guardian, the minor/claimant aged 7 years, claimed an amount of Rs.2.34 lakhs as compensation for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.61,800/- under various heads and the claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The minor child had suffered fracture of the frontal bone and dislocation of the hip joint. He was in the hospital for a period of 25 days. Procedures under general anaesthesia had to be undergone and the child was put on skin traction. The claimant child allegedly suffered disability as a result of the accident and the same was confirmed by the doctor. The percentage of physical disability was assessed by the doctor at 12% for the limb. The Tribunal reckoned the disability at 7% for the whole body. The doctor who issued the disability certificate was examined before court also as PW4. The child had suffered M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2003 2 retardation in his educational progress, he having been compelled to remain at home and having lost one year in his educational career. A certificate to that effect has been produced also. 3. The Tribunal taking into account all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the claimant child is entitled for an amount of Rs.61,800/- along with interest @ 9% and cost. 4. Called upon to explain the specific challenge against the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal was not being reasonable and realistic in not awarding any amount of compensation for the loss of one year in the educational career of the child. We are in ready agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. Such loss is borne out by the certificate issued by the school authorities marked as Ext.A15. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.12,000/- can safely be awarded as compensation under this head. 5. Considering the nature of injuries including fracture of the frontal bone and dislocation of the right hip as also the period of inpatient treatment and the outpatient treatment which M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2003 3 followed and the nature of the procedures undergone at the hospital including reduction under general anaesthesia, we are satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering at Rs.12,000/- is not adequate. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that further amounts deserve to be awarded under that head. We are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.15,000/-, ie. Rs.3,000/- more, can safely be awarded under that head. 6. The learned counsel then contends that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities is too inadequate and meager. The counsel points out that the claimant is a 7 year old child and the quality of enjoyment of life as a child and also in later years would be affected considerably by the disability of 12% suffered on the right limb even though the total body disability is reckoned by the Tribunal only at 7%. In any view of the matter, the amount awarded as compensation - ie., Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities is not reasonable, argues the counsel. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that award of an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of amenities - ie. Rs.5,000/- more would be reasonable. M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2003 4 7. We are not satisfied that any further amount deserves to be awarded under any other particular head. The Tribunal had taken notional income at Rs.1,500/- per mensem and had taken the multiplier at 15, which is the maximum admissible under the second schedule to the Act. We are further satisfied that the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded as compensation for medical expenses incurred, expenses for bystanders and extra nourishment etc. though only bills covering an amount of Rs.15,000/- were produced before the Tribunal is also absolutely justified. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as shown above in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal along with interest on the total amount and cost as already awarded. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON) rtr/-