Syed Mannan Ahammed vs The HDFC General Assu. Co. Ltd. and Others

B. Manohar, J.—Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 6th February 2010 in MVC No. 8605/2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

The case of the claimant is that, on 20-10-2008 at about 11.00 a.m., while the claimant who was aged about 8 years, while crossing the road near Renuka Nagara on Nelamangala-Doddaballapura Road, a Hero Ultra motorbike bearing registration No. KA-52/E-8641 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from Nelamangala side and dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant had taken first aid treatment in Jay Prasad Hospital at Nelamangala. In the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of both the bones of left leg (compound fracture); tenderness and deformity over the left leg; lacerated wound over the left leg. He had undergone surgery for the fracture in the said hospital. He was inpatient for a period of 5 days. The claimant claims that he had spent more than Rs. 60,000/- towards medical expenses and hospital charges and sought for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

Though respondents 1 and 2 are served with notice, the second respondent has not filed any objections. The first respondent filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also denied the occurrence of the accident. Further, the rider of the motorbike did not possess the valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, though the policy is in existence. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. On trial, the Tribunal held that the due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike, the accident occurred and the claimant is entitled to compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 7 years, the doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the permanent disability to an extent of 30% to the left leg and 9% to the whole body. The Tribunal taking into consideration notional income of the claimant as Rs. 15,000/-, taking into consideration the permanent disability to an extent of 9% to the whole body and applying multiplier 15, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,250/- towards future loss of income; Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of amenities of life; Rs. 41,800/- towards medical expenditure and Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 97,050/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed this appeal interalia contending that the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and Others, , wherein the Supreme Court has taken the notional income of Rs. 30,000/- for the children aged less than 15 years. Further, Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities of life is also on the lower side. Rs. 25,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings is on the lower side and sought for enhancement of compensation.

On the other hand, Sri. D. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued the matter in favour of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.

The records clearly disclose that in view of rash and negligent riding of the Hero Ultra motorbike, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 20-10-2008. In the accident, the claimant had sustained compound fracture of left leg and other injuries to the body. He had undergone surgery and closed reduction and external fixation has been applied and implants have been inserted. He was inpatient for a period of 5 days and he was advised to take rest for 8 weeks. Subsequently, he was once again admitted to hospital for removal of external fixation. Hence, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings is on the lower side and he is entitled for another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. While awarding future loss of income, the Tribunal had taken notional income of Rs. 15,000/- which is on the lower side. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that for the children less than 15 years, the notional income has to be taken at Rs. 30,000/- and applying the appropriate multiplier 15, awarded compensation. If the notional income of the claimant is taken at Rs. 30,000/- taking into consideration disability at 9% to the whole body and applying multiplier 15, the claimant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards future loss of income. Further with that 30% disability, the claimant has to lead his remaining life. Hence a sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities of life is on the lower side. Hence, he is entitled for another sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to the compensation of Rs. 97,050/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, I pass the following:

"ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 06-02-2010 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 8605/2008 is modified. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a."