LexMASTER MALLIKARJUN versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 268 A MASTER MALLIKARJUN v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 7139 of 2013) B AUGUST 26, 2013 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Compensation claim c - By child victim who suffered disability in a motor accident - Held: While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act - The main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages - For children D there is no income - Only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the notional income as Rs. 15, 0001- per year - A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person - Therefore, compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual E amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. - Main elements of damage in case of child victims are pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs - The compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop F a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability - In case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should G be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs. 6 lakhs - For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are H 268 MASTER MALLIKARJUN v. DIVINL. MGR., NATIONAL 269 INS. COMPANY LIMITED exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick - In the A instant case, the disability was to the tune of 18% -- Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing a/so inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents -Appellant, hence, would be entitled to get total compensation of Rs.3, 75,0001-along with interest@ 6% per annum from the B date of the petition. The appellant, a 12 year old child, was hit by a motorcycle. He suffered various injuries. The surgeon assessed·the disability of appellant to the extent of 34% C of right lower limb and 18% to the whole body. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a petition filed by appellant claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, awarded compensation of Rs.63,500/-.The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,09,500/. Appellant still not satisfied, came before this Court. D What is the just and fair compensation to be awarded to a child, who suffered disability in a motor accident, was the main point arising for consideration in the instant appeal. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is unfortunate that both the Tribunal and the High Court have not properly appreciated the medical evidence available in the case. The age of the child and F deformities on his body resulting in disability, have not been duly taken note of. While assessing the non- pecuniary damages, the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely to be suffered, any future damages for the loss of G amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation in active sports, etc., damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc., have to be addressed especially in the H l 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A case of a child victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come. While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. The main B stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For children there is no income. The only indication in the · Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the c compensation is to be worked out under the non- pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.