1. These two appeals have been preferred from the award passed in OP(MV)No.775/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda.

2. MACA No.3159/2016 is an appeal preferred by the claimant, whereas the MACA No.2103/2016 is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this appeal as the claimant and respondents as in the O.P.

3. Claimant filed the OP seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, from R1 to R3, stating that on 01.06.2011 at 5.00 pm, while she was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/G 6686 driven by the 1st respondent and when the autorickshaw reached Palaprakunnu- Konathukunnu Road, the autorickshaw fell into a dip, and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the autorickshaw. R2 is the RC owner of the said autorickshaw and R3 is the Insurance Company.

4. Though R1 entered appearance before the tribunal, no written statement was filed. R2 remained absent and he was set exparte.

5. R3 filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid insurance coverage for the autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL-8/G 6686. But, it was contended that R1 had no badge and therefore, R3 is not liable to indemnify the owner. It was also contended that the amount claimed under various heads are exorbitant.

6. After trial, the learned Tribunal passed an award granting a sum of Rs.2,09,500/- along with interest at 8% per annum and cost. The claimant who is the appellant in MACA No.3159/2016 would contend that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate and it is not a just compensation.

7. Per contra, the 3rd respondent/insurance company, who is the appellant in MACA No.2103/2016 would contend that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under all heads are excessive. Further, it was contended that the 1st respondent had no badge to drive the autorickshaw there was violation of policy conditions and therefore insurance company is not liable to indemnify the RC owner.

8. In view of the rival contentions, at first, let us see whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs any interference by this Court.

9. Admittedly, at the time of the accident, claimant was a minor aged 13 years and she was a student. The medical records produced by the claimant would show that she sustained the following injuries.

                  1. swelling (L) forehead

                  2.(L)facial contusion

                  3.(L) zygomatic bone fracture

                  4.(R) Humerus fracture shaft

                  5.(L) optic nerve injury

                  6.Absent vision(L) eye

10. Medical records would reveal that she had undergone treatment at hospital as an inpatient for the injuries sustained in the accident. Medical records would further reveal that she was admitted in the hospital for removal of the implant. Ext.A5 and A6 disability certificates issued by the doctors would show that she sustained 11.12% whole body disability and 25% visual disability. PW2, the doctor opined that the claimant has the following difficulties.

                  1. Limitation and extension due to partial ankylosis of (R) elbow.

                  2. Weakness of flexion and extension of (R) elbow.

                  3. Weakness of flexion of (R) shoulder

                  4.Tenderness at fracture site of (R) humerus.

                  5. Paresthesia of (R) forearm dorsum

                  6. Limitation of flexion of (L) temporomandibular joint

11. It was also noted by the doctor that she has difficulty in lifting or carrying heavy object, to pull, to push throw with right hand to hold above head, to open mouth fully bite hard etc.

12. PW1/ Doctor has opined that claimant’s vision of left eye is only 6/36 and there is partial traumatic optic atrophy and relative afferent pupillary defect and permanent visual disability of 25%.

13. Thus, it has come out in evidence that claimant suffered grievous injuries in the accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head permanent disability by following guidelines in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company. Limited and Another [2014 (14) SCC 396].

14. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that since the claimant sustained permanent disability exceeding 10% and 25% visual disability, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,09,500/- awarded by the tribunal is meager. It was contended that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head permanent disability is meager and inadequate.

15. The learned counsel for the claimant would also contend that compensation for loss of earnings to a minor child suffering permanent disability should be calculated based on minimum wages payable to a skilled workmen rather than taking the child as non earning. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the decision in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari reported in [2026 (1) KHC 316]. The claimant was aged 13 years and she was a student at the time of accident.

16. In view of the head injury, zygomatic bone fracture and fracture shaft of right humerus and taking into account the fact that the claimants suffered permanent disability of 11.12% and visual disability of 25%, this Court is of the view that by following the guidelines in Mallikarjun's case (cited supra) the disability can be assessed within the range of above 10% and an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is granted under the said head instead of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

17. Under the head, transportation charges, the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,000/-, which is found to be meager. The claimant, who suffered grievous injuries, might have required multiple hospital visits. Hence, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head transportation charges.

18. Under the head, extra nourishment only an amount of Rs. 1,000/- is seen awarded by the tribunal. Claimant was aged 13 years and sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, she might have needed special diet and nutritional support for recovery. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 4,000/- is awarded under the said head instead of Rs.1,000/-.

19. Under the head damage to clothing, instead of Rs.500, an amount of Rs.1,000/- is awarded.

20. Claimant was admitted in the hospital for a period of 6 days. Her parents or guardian might have stayed with her during hospitalization and thereafter which resulted in a loss of their income. Therefore, under the head bystander expenses, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is granted as it is found to be reasonable.

21. Under the head pain and sufferings, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded instead of Rs.30,000/-.

22. Under the head permanent disability, 3,00,000/- granted instead of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

23. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the permanent disability of 11.12% and the 25% visual disability have resulted in a restriction in her normal living and it has adversely affected her marriage prospects.

24. The claimant, who is a girl, sustained a permanent disability of 11.12% and she lost the vision of her left eye by 25%. Definitely it would affect the day-to-day life of the claimant. A 25% loss of vision will have lasting consequences, causing continuous discomfort, and it would definitely affect her marriage prospects, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant. Hence, an amount of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities.

25. The compensation payable to the claimant is as indicated in the tabular statement here below:

                 

                

          26. In the light of the findings rendered above, the contentions raised by the Insurance company that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive and devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the said contentions are rejected.

27. The remaining point for consideration is whether the contention raised by the Insurance Company that since the driver of the offending autorickshaw had no badge, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the RC owner is to be accepted or not.

28. In Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rambha Devi [(2025) 3 SCC 95] by reiterating its earlier view in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 14 SCC 663] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the valid Light Motor Vehicle Licence covers transport vehicles, if their weight does not exceed 7,500 Kg. The Apex Court held that no special endorsement is required for light weight transport vehicles.

29. In view of the above settled legal position, there is no merit in the contention put forward by the Insurance Company that since 1st respondent has no badge, there was violation of policy conditions.

30. In view of the above findings, MACA .No.2103 of 2016 filed by the insurance company stands dismissed. No cost. MACA.No.3159/2016 stands allowed with costs.

31. R3 insurance company shall deposit the award amount as enhanced by this Court with 8% interest in the Bank Account of the claimant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the deposit if any already made. Since there was a delay of 204 days in filing the appeal, the claimant will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of 204 days as directed in C.M.Appli.No.1/2016 in M.A.C.A. No.3159/2016.

                  The claimant shall produce the details of the bank account before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.