The Kerala High Court has enhanced the compensation by Rs 42.8 lakh and awarded Rs 53,88,750 to a woman who suffered 100% disability due to a motor accident. The incident took place in the year 2006 when she was 7 years old. The High Court also held that while awarding just and reasonable compensation, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award a compensation amount exceeding the amount claimed.

The Petitioner, Kumari Sumisha, was a minor girl aged 7 when she suffered 70% neurological disability and 70% orthopedic disability. Her four limbs are function-less because of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2006. She had approached the High Court challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The victim was admitted to an orphanage as she lost her parents in the meantime.

Referring to the judgment in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors (2003), the Single Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar said, “The law is also well settled that, while awarding just and reasonable compensation, there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the amount claimed.”

Advocate T.C. Suresh Menon represented the Appellant while Advocate A.A. Mohammed Nazir represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2006 when a car driven by the second respondent rashly and negligently, and at high speed, hit the girl down as a result of which she sustained severe head injury. The child was treated as an inpatient at the Hospital for a total period of 77 days. The first respondent is the owner, and the third respondent is the insurer of the offending motor vehicle. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and assessed a compensation of Rs. 11,54,519, but limited it to Rs. 1104550. The third respondent/insurer was asked to pay the same. Since the Tribunal found that the vehicle did not have a valid permit and fitness certificate, the Tribunal permitted the third respondent to recover the amount from the first respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner is staying in an orphanage and living at the mercy of the officials of the orphanage. The Bench was of the view that the victim cannot be left at the mercy of the officials of the orphanage, by denying her the legitimate compensation due for the injuries sustained in the accident.

The Bench held that she was entitled to get just and reasonable compensation due to her, as in the case of any other victims of road traffic accident. “However, under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim is not limited to loss resulting from the death alone, but just and reasonable compensation is to be awarded. Moreover, in the instant case the victim herself is the claimant and not the legal representatives of the deceased…”, it said.

It was further noticed that the victim herein was a minor at the time of the alleged admission. Since the victim was a non-earning child of 7 years, only notional income could be fixed for assessing the loss of disability. The accident herein was in the year 2006, and as per the Bench Rs 3000 was not a considerable amount.

The High Court further mentioned that considering the severity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, she would have to remain in bed for the rest of her life, depending on others for everything, including daily necessities. As per the Bench, unless and until just and reasonable compensation is awarded and provision is made for its effective utilization, there will be nobody to look after the petitioner, who is also an orphan, during the rest of her life. “...this court sitting in appeal, has a duty to award just and reasonable compensation due to the petitioner, irrespective of the said submission made by the counsel”, it stated.

Considering that the condition of the petitioner is very pathetic and she has been completely bedridden with all four limbs functionless and is unable to move from the bed without the help of anybody else, the Bench held that her functional disability is to be taken as 100%. Further, since she was aged 7 at the time of accident, 40% of the income had to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, the compensation for loss of disability came to Rs 15,12,000. The Bench also awarded a sum of Rs.15 lakh towards bystander expense in light of the fact that she was left completely bedridden and required the assistance of a bystander for everything.

Thus, enhancing the compensation, the Bench allowed the Appeal in part and directed the insurer to deposit a total sum of Rs 53,88,750, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest within two months. Retaining the permission for pay and recovery granted to the insurer, the Bench also ordered, “The balance amount shall be deposited in a Nationalised bank in fixed deposit(s) for a long term so as to get maximum interest, in the name of the petitioner/victim represented by her sister Smt.Subisha as guardian. A lien shall be marked on the face of the receipt(s) that the amount shall be disbursed only on the orders of the Tribunal.”

Cause Title: Sumisha (Minor) v. Shaji P.Y. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:34755)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates T.C. Suresh Menon, A.R. Nimod

Respondent: Advocates A.A. Mohammed Nazir-SC, PMM. Najeeb Khan

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice C Pratheep Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.