IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 170 of 2009()
1. SHYMA (MINOR),AGED 14 YRS,D/O.MAJITHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,S/O.RAMACHANDRAN
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,NATIONAL INSURANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent :SRI.JOE KALLIATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.170 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims
Tribunal Kollam in O.P. (M.V).1578/02. The claimant who
sustained injuries in a road accident is a minor girl and the
claims Tribunal had dismissed the application on the ground that
negligence is not proved. The Tribunal pointed out that there
was a delay in lodging the FIR by two days and therefore one
cannot hold that everything is in order. The court also
commended upon the place of accident and also the scene
mahazar. At the outset I may like to point out that the person
involved in the accident is a minor girl aged seven years at the
time of the accident. It has been repeatedly held by various
courts that when a child of about seven years gets involved in an
accident one cannot attribute contributory negligence on the
child for the reason that the child is incapable of understanding
the consequences of its action. The child who goes to the school
by road would be more interested in seeing the various things in
and around her and just like elderly men could not normally
MACA No.170/09 2
realise the consequences. That is why the courts have held that
contributory negligence could never be attributed to a minor
child who is aged about seven years of age. Since the accident is
admitted and the police after due investigation filed charge
sheet before the court, the involvement of the vehicle and the
riding of the motor cycle by the first respondent stand
established and therefore I hold that the first respondent is and
negligent liable for the accident.
2. Now turning to the quantum, the young girl was
admitted at Upasana hospital, Kollam ad a perusal of the
documents would reveal that she had a deformity and limitation
of movement of the right shoulder coupled with a fracture on the
right clavicle. She was admitted as an inpatient for ten days and
it is on this basis compensation has to be calculated. I proceed
to determine the compensation as follows:
Since the claimant was in the hospital for 10 days she is granted
Rs.1,000/- as bystanders expense, towards medical expense I
grant a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards nutritious food, damage to
cloth and transportation etc. I award a further sum of
Rs.1,000/-. Since the child has sustained dislocation and
MACA No.170/09 3
fracture of the clavicle, I grant Rs.8,000/- towards pain and
suffering. Certainly on account of the accident child would not
have been in a position to play or enjoy. There would be loss of
amenities for which I grant Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the claimant
will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,000/-.
3. In the result, MACA is allowed. The order dismissing
the application is set aside. The claimant is awarded a
compensation of Rs.16,000/- with 7.5 % interest on the said sum
from the date of petition till realisation and the Insurance
company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
sou.