IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 252 of 2009()
1. AKHIL JOY AGED 9 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MARY GEORGE, MOOLETHADATHIL HOUSE
... Respondent
2. JOJO M.GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, MOOLETHADA-
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
4. MANIKUTTAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.K.SAJAN KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :16/08/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
----------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.252 of 2009
----------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
—————-
Abdul Rehim,J.
Claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded. The accident
occurred on 31.10.2003 while the claimant, who is a student
aged 9 years was travelling in a Mini Bus. Due to negligent
negotiation of a curve by the driver of the Mini Bus, the
claimant was thrown out from the Bus and sustained very
severe head injury. From the Medical records it is revealed
that the claimant had undergone more than one surgical
procedure. The claimant was treated as inpatient on two
spells; i.e. from 31.10.2003 to 20.12.2003 and from 4.3.2004
to 16.3.2004. He continued prolonged treatment as
outpatient thereafter. Ext.A9 Medical Certificate would show
that even after two years the claimant is continuing with
permanent disorders. Ext.A11 is the disability certificate
which is proved through PW1 Doctor. Even though stiff
M.A.C.A.252/09
2
opposition was there against accepting Ext.A11, the Tribunal
accepted 50% permanent disability for computing
compensation for permanent disability. Being a school going
student the Tribunal adopted notional income of Rs.2,500/-
per month and multiplier of 15. A total compensation of
Rs.3,00,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. She
placed reliance on a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sarala Varma Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation
(2010 (2) KLT 802 SC). In the said judgment the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had pointed out that, evidently there are
errors crept in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,
and it requires correction for the purpose of finding out the
correct compensation to be awarded with respect to victims of
different age groups. But in the operative portion of the
judgment, eventhough there is mention about the correct
multiplier to be adopted in the case of victims of age groups
of 15-20 upto 61-65, it is not mentioned that the multiplier of
15 prescribed for the age group upto 15 years is in any way
erroneous. In the case at hand, the claimant was admittedly
M.A.C.A.252/09
3
aged 9 years at the time of accident. Therefore we are of the
considered opinion that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the
Tribunal is correct. We do not find that the notional income
adopted by the Tribunal is unreasonable. Hence we find no
ground warranting interference with respect to quantum of
compensation awarded under the head of permanent
disability.
3. Learned counsel further argued that compensation
of Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering
is too meagre an amount considering the prolonged treatment
undergone and the continuing disability from which the
claimant is suffering even now. It is also pointed out that the
amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities and
enjoyment in life is also highly insufficient. Considering
severe nature of the injuries sustained and also considering
history of the prolonged treatment, we are of the opinion that
enhancement of compensation under those heads by a sum of
Rs.25,000/- will meet the ends of justice. We do not find any
ground for enhancement of the compensation awarded under
different other heads.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that
M.A.C.A.252/09
4
there is a mistake occurred in computing (in adding) the total
figure of compensation. On a re-computation of the amounts
awarded under different heads, we are convinced that the
total amount will come to Rs.3,74,479/-, instead of the amount
of Rs.3,00,500/- mentioned in the Award. The Award should
be corrected to the above extent.
5. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum
of Rs.25,000/- and also re-fixing the total amount at
Rs.3,99,479/- (3,74,479 + 25,000). The total amount of
compensation will carry interest at the rate of 10% from the
date of application till payment.
6. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company is directed
to make payment of the award amount within a period of two
months from today.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb