Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar directed the third respondent insurer to pay a compensation of ₹53,88,750 to a 25-year-old accident survivor who suffered 100% functional disability in a road accident as a minor. The Court held that the petitioner, presently bedridden and residing in an orphanage, is entitled to just and reasonable compensation irrespective of earlier concessions made before the Tribunal. The Court also retained the Tribunal’s direction permitting the insurer to recover the amount from the owner due to absence of a valid permit and fitness certificate.

The appellant, a female child aged seven at the time of the accident on 30 July 2006, sustained life-altering injuries when a car struck her while she was walking along the Kuttanellur-Paliakkara NH bypass. The vehicle, driven by the second respondent and owned by the first respondent, was insured with the third respondent. The child was immediately hospitalized and remained an inpatient for 77 days at Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur, suffering severe head injuries and multiple fractures.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Misuse Of Gangsters Act | Application Of Law Must Be Reasoned Not Routine | Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed To Mechanical Arrests And Pre-Printed Gang Charts

The appellant subsequently became completely bedridden, losing the use of all four limbs. Medical assessments recorded both neurological and orthopedic disabilities at 70%. Following the death of her mother in 2009 and father in 2020, her sister Subisha was appointed as her next friend under a court order. Due to family financial constraints, the appellant was admitted to Thanal V.M.V. Orphanage in Thrissur.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found the second respondent negligent and awarded ₹11,04,550 as compensation, directing the insurer to pay the amount. The Tribunal, citing lack of valid vehicle permit and fitness certificate, also granted the insurer recovery rights against the owner.

Dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellant filed the present appeal. The insurer raised objections, referencing a 2009 investigative report to argue that future treatment was unlikely to improve her condition and that expenses might be minimal due to her being in an orphanage.

The Court, to ascertain the appellant’s current condition, impleaded the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Thrissur. Following a site visit, the Secretary filed a detailed report outlining the orphanage’s financial dependency on public donations and the victim’s need for constant care, physiotherapy, and counselling. The report recorded the petitioner as bedridden, without use of her limbs, with speech difficulties, and no personal property or close relatives except her sister.

The insurer opposed enhancement of compensation, arguing that the vehicle lacked requisite documents and that the victim, being in an orphanage, had minimal needs. The insurer also contended that the Tribunal had correctly limited compensation based on submissions by the petitioner’s counsel regarding notional income.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that as the accident occurred in 2006, notional income must be calculated as per applicable benchmarks for that period, citing authoritative precedents. The Court evaluated judgments cited by both sides, noting distinctions in fact and law, and considered Supreme Court precedents on awarding just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court stated: “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.”

It recorded that while earlier judgments involved claims by legal representatives of deceased minors, the present case involved a living claimant, who continues to suffer: “The compensation payable to the parents of a 7 year old child who died... can never be compared to compensation payable to a child lying in vegetative condition for the rest of its life.”

On the issue of counsel’s concession regarding notional income, the Court held:“A client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. The Tribunal and the appellate court have the duty to award just compensation to the claimant.”

Referencing the Apex Court’s judgment in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, it observed: “There is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount.”

In determining the quantum, the Court cited Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, noting: “The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all.”

It further stated: “The compensation to be awarded to the petitioner should not be inadequate, but it must be sufficient enough to meet all exigencies likely to be faced by her, for the rest of her life.”

While computing future loss of income, the Court recorded: “Since she was aged 7 at the time of accident, 40% of the income is to be added towards future prospects and the multiplier to be applied is 15.”

The notional income was fixed at ₹6,000/month. Functional disability was accepted at 100%. The Court rejected the insurer’s argument that being in an orphanage reduced the victim’s future needs, noting: “She will remain bedridden for the rest of her life... therefore, the pain and suffering of the petitioner herein cannot be compared with that of Kajal and it will be much more.”

The Court allowed the appeal in part and directed the third respondent to deposit a total sum of ₹53,88,750 (Rupees fifty-three lakh eighty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty only), after deducting any amount already deposited, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition until deposit or realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from the date of the judgment.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Declines Interim Bail In 28 NDPS Cases | Violation Of Article 22(1) Alone Not Enough | Offences Under NDPS Are ‘Crimes Against Society At Large And The Nation Itself’

It was further directed that, upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse 10% of the entire amount, excluding any court fee payable, to the guardian of the petitioner without delay. The remaining balance is to be deposited in fixed deposit(s) in a Nationalised bank for the long term in the name of the petitioner, represented by her sister as guardian.

A lien shall be marked on the face of the receipt(s) stating that the amount shall only be disbursed pursuant to orders of the Tribunal.

The Court also retained the permission for pay-and-recovery granted by the Tribunal, observing that the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess a valid permit and fitness certificate, and therefore, allowed the third respondent to recover the amount from the first respondent.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: T.C. Suresh Menon, Advocate; A.R. Nimod, Advocate

For the Respondents: A.A. Mohammed Nazir, Standing Counsel; PMM. Najeeb Khan, Advocate

Case Title: Sumisha v. Shaji P.Y. & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:34755

Case Number: MACA No. 1085 of 2013

Bench: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar

[Read/Download order]