Secretary, Gulf Ideal International And Charitable Trust Kodikulam P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki District vs Ajith John

T.R.Ravi, J

The only question that arises in this appeal, which has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle in a motor vehicle accident, is whether the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities and conveniences, while working out the compensation following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. reported in [(2014) 14 SCC 396].

A  minor  child  aged  7  years  was  travelling  in  an autorickshaw on 6.10.2010. A mini bus driven by the 2nd respondent collided against the autorikshaw, injuring the child. The appellant is the owner of the mini bus. Admittedly, the bus did not have a valid insurance at the time of the accident and it also did not have a fitness certificate. The Tribunal found that the insurer is not liable and awarded a sum of Rs.4,80,840/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31.12.2010, which was directed to be paid by the appellant and the 2nd respondent. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

The fixing of liability on the appellant is not disputed. The only question to be considered is whether compensation can be granted under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities. In Mallikarjun(Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court evolved a method for granting compensation in case of injury suffered by children, causing them permanent disability. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, it was held that appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages like pain and suffering, physical shock, laws of amenities, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc., and apart from that head, there should only be the claim for actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation, etc. It was further held that in case of children who suffer disability between 10% and 30% to the whole body, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs should be awarded for non-pecuniary damages. Hence, if the Tribunal is following the principles laid down in Mallikarjun(Supra), compensation ought to have been granted for non-pecuniary damages only at the rate specified in the judgment and no amount ought to have been granted under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities. I find considerable force on the contention of the appellant. The counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the judgment in Mallikarjun (Supra) does not allow compensation under the different heads for non-pecuniary damages.

In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the amount of Rs.75,000/- granted towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- granted towards loss of amenities are deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal stands modified permitting the 1st respondent to realise a sum of Rs.3,55,840/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty only) with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the petition to the date of realisation with proportionate cost from the appellant and the 2nd respondent. The appellant shall deposit the entire amount awarded after deducting the amounts which have been deposited as directed by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The disbursement of the amounts deposited by the Tribunal will be in accordance with law.