Jishnu C.(Minor) vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 4141 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jishnu C.(Minor) vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd on 17 February, 2025

                                                    2025:KER:15352
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN

     MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946

                        MACA NO. 210 OF 2018

       AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.07.2017 IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.53 OF

 2015 OF II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

          JISHNU C.(MINOR)​
          AGED 11 YEARS​
          S/O. CHANDRAN G., KAITHAKONAM KALAM, VADUKATHARA,
          THENKURUSSI, PALAKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT K. G. NIVAS,
          AMBALA NADA, THENKURISSI P.O., 678671.
          REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND CHANDRAN G.,
          S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
          KAITHAKONAM KALAM, VADUKATHARA, THENKURUSSI,
          PALAKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT K. G. NIVAS,
          AMBALA NADA, THENKURISSI P.O., 678671.

          BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

          TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.​
          PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, TOWER A,
          15TH FLOOR, GANAPATRO KADAM MARG,
          OFF SENAPTAHI, BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL,
          MUMBAI-400013.

          BY ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMU

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA No.210 of 2018
                                   2



                                                                 2025:KER:15352

                               JUDGMENT

​ The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.53/2015, on the file of the Additional

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad has preferred this appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded on account of the injuries sustained

to his minor son in a motor accident that occurred on 22.05.2014.

​ 2.​ The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

​ On 22.05.2014 at 6.00 p.m., while the petitioner's minor son, aged 8

years, was standing on the side of a public road at Ambalanada, a car

bearing Registration No. TN-07-BK-2419, driven by the 1st respondent in a

rash and negligent manner hit down the minor son of the petitioner. Due to

the impact of the hit, the petitioner's son sustained very serious injuries.

3.​ The owner cum driver of the car bearing Registration No.

TN-07-BK-2419 was arrayed as 1st respondent in the petition, whereas, the

insurer of the said vehicle was arrayed as 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent

filed written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation

claimed under various heads. However, the 2nd respondent admitted

2025:KER:15352

insurance coverage for the vehicle involved in the accident.

4.​ The petitioner's evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A15. The disability

certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext.X1. From the side

of the respondents, no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced.

5.​ After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident

occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st

respondent and being the insurer, the 2nd respondent, was held liable to pay

the compensation. The compensation amount was fixed at Rs.1,86,760/-with

9% interest from the date of petition till realisation after deducting the

amount, if any, paid to the applicant under section 140 of the Motor Vehicle

Act and with proportionate costs. Feeling dissatisfied by the said

compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

6.​ I heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant

and Smt. P.S. Ramu., the Standing Counsel for the respondent Insurance

Company. ​

7.​ From the contentions raised from both sides, it is discernible that

2025:KER:15352

the dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various

heads is on the lower side. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent, the insurance company, would submit that the amount of

compensation awarded is reasonable, just, and fair, and hence no

interference is warranted. ​

8.​ Admittedly, the injured in this case is a minor boy. It is further

established that he was a IIIrd standard student at the time of the accident.

Therefore, the Tribunal rightly declined to grant any amount as compensation

under the head of loss of earnings. Anyhow, it cannot be overlooked that

when a minor boy merely eight years old meets with an accident, his father

or mother, who is taking care of him will have to devote considerable time

and effort to provide care and support. This may involve standing by his

bedside, accompanying him to medical appointments, and attending to his

various needs during the recovery period. Moreover, the petitioner herein,

being a daily wager, his work and earnings at least for one month would have

2025:KER:15352

been adversely affected. Considering the same, I am of the view that an

amount of Rs.9,500/- has to be awarded under the head of loss of earnings

of the father of the minor child.

9.​ A perusal of the impugned award further shows that for the

purpose of computing compensation under the head of permanent disability,

the income of the minor boy was taken as Rs.5,000/- notionally by the

Tribunal. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2014. Though in the

petition no specific amount was mentioned for calculating compensation

under the head of permanent disability, it was obligatory on the part of the

Tribunal, to assess the income reasonably to ensure that the compensation

awarded under said head is just and fair. Therefore, I am of the considered

view that in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.[( 2011)

13 SCC 236], the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the minor

boy at Rs.9,500/- per month notionally. The disability certificate issued by the

Medical Board and marked in evidence as Ext.X1 shows that the petitioner's

minor son had suffered a disability of 9% due to the injuries sustained in the

2025:KER:15352

accident. As the petitioner's son was a minor boy, the multiplier to be

reckoned is 15. Hence, the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of

Rs. 1,53,900/- [Rs. 9,500 x 12 x 15 x 9/100]. Already an amount of

Rs.81,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. After

deducting the said amount the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount

of Rs. 72,900/- (Rupees Seventy Two Thousand and Nine Hundred only) as

additional compensation under the head of permanent disability.

10.​ A perusal of the award further shows that an amount of

Rs.40,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and

suffering. When the accident occurred, the petitioner's son was aged only 8

years. He had suffered the following injuries in the accident:-

" 1.​ Type-I fracture right tibia

2.​ Type 1 fracture right fibula

3.​ Deep abrasion right leg and foot

4.​ Multiple abrasion all over the body. "

Of course, the injuries sustained by the minor son of the petitioner are

grievous in nature. The pain and suffering endured by him cannot be

2025:KER:15352

overlooked while awarding compensation under the head of pain and

suffering. I am of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has to be awarded

under the head of pain and suffering. Hence the petitioner is entitled to get

an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under the

said head.

​ 11.​ A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal omitted to award

any amount as compensation under the head of loss of amenities. Of course,

the inconvenience and hardships caused to the minor due to the injuries

sustained in the accident cannot go unnoticed. Considering the same, I am

inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

under the head of loss of amenities also. Hence, the petitioner is found

entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,02,400/- (Rs.9,500/- + 72,900/- +

Rs. 10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) as additional compensation.

​ In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is

allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of

Rs. 1,02,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand and Four Hundred only)

with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation

2025:KER:15352

from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit after deducting interest

for a period of 4 days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as

directed by this Court on 22.12.2021 in C.M. Appln. No.1/2018. The

respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced

compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the

judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the

tribunal shall, after deducting the liability of the appellant/petitioner towards

court fee, disburse the compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner in

accordance with law.

​       ​        ​   ​   ​    ​     ​     ​      ​     ​     ​      sd/-

                                                           JOBIN SEBASTIAN,
​       ​        ​   ​   ​    ​     ​     ​      ​     ​     ​   JUDGE


HKH/17.02.2025