Case: Kumari Kiran Thr. Her Father Harinarayan Vs. Sajjan Singh

3. The necessary relevant facts are stated as under:On 04.06.2009, Kumari Kiran and her brother Master Sachin (the pillion riders, hereinafter referred to as the) were going on a motor cycle to their village Shujalpur from Bhopal with their father Harinarayan, (rider of the motor cycle, hereinafter referred to as the. While on their way, a tractor bearing No. MP13K1981 driven by Sajjan Singh (respondent No.1), collided with the motor cycle on which the appellants were riding. Due to the impact of this collision the appellants fell down and sustained grievous injuries. After medical examination, it was concluded that all the three appellants had fractured their femur, tibia and fibula bones on their right leg and had to undergo an operation at National Hospital Bhopal where a rod and a ring were implanted on each one of their right leg. Upon further medical examination, it was found that the right leg of all the three appellants had become one inch shorter due to the injuries caused to them in the accident. Therefore, ther were determined with 30% permanent disability and then was determined with 20% permanent disability by the doctor who had treated them4. A First Information Report was lodged in Mandi Shujalpur Police Station against the driver (respondent No.1) of the offending tractor under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.)5. The appellants filed a claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. The Tribunal after considering the facts, evidence produced on record and the circumstances of the case, apportioned contributory negligence at 50% on the part of ther who was riding the motorcycle on which thes were the pillion riders and 50% on the driver of the offending tractorThe Tribunal awarded an interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the totalcompensation7. Being aggrieved by the common award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants filed M.A. Nos. 2575 of 2010, 2574 of 2010 and 2579 of 2010 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. After considering the facts, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, the High Court held that thes who were the pillion riders cannot be held for contributory negligence as apportioned by the Tribunal even if theirr who was the motorcyclist was at fault. Therefore, the High Court set aside the deduction arising out of the contributory negligence from the compensation determined towards the permanent disability for the. The High Court also reduced the contributory negligence on the part ofr (motorcyclist) from 50% to 25%. Further, the High Court enhanced the compensation of thelump sum and Rs.35,000/towards medical expenses) to be paid with an interest @ Rs.7.5% per annum vide its impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2012. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and order, the appellants filed these appeals.

Reasoning: 9. After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the courts below have failed to follow the principles as laid down by this Court in the case of Subulaxmi (supra) in awarding compensation under a singular head towards permanent disability and loss of future earning to the13. With regard to the apportionment of contributory negligence at 25% on the part of ther and 75% on the driver of the offending tractor as determined by the High Court, we refer to the judgment of this Court in Juju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. [(2013)9 SCC 166] as it is applicable to facts of the case on hand. In the above case, Joy Kuruvila (the deceased) had an collision with a bus approaching from the opposite side. Joy Kuruvila sustained serious injuries and died on the way to the hospital16. We are of the opinion, that the appellants without doubt need sufficient nutrition in order to ensure their good health, especially considering thes who are just over 10 and 15 years of age. As the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in awarding a meagre amount of Rs.3,000/to each one of the appellants towards special food and nutrition, instead we award Rs.10,000/each towards the same17. In our considered view of the facts of the case, it is clear that medical attendants were taken for the appellants care for 3 months during their treatment and rest period. The Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not awarding compensation towards the same. Therefore, we award Rs.9,000/each towards attendants charges (Rs.3,000/per month for each attendant) and Rs. 5,000/each towards transportation charges18. The compensation awarded to the appellants towards medical expenses by the Tribunal and enhancement of the same by the High Court to the19. Further, we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in granting interest rate at only 6% p.a. and 7.5% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 9% p.a. by applying the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy[8]. Accordingly, we award the interest @9% p.a. on the compensation determined in these appeals.