JUDGMENT : The Injured/Claimant (minor) represented by his father B.Subbarayudu, aggrieved by the Order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.586 of 2000, filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 3. (a) The claimant/injured filed the above-mentioned original petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 28.06.1999. In the original petition, it is averred that, while the claimant was going on a cycle to the market at Koilkuntla and when he reached near the house of Pedda Giddanna, the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 came behind the claimant/injured, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and hit the cycle, due to which the claimant has fallen, sustained fracture injuries and was taken to the Government Hospital, Koilkuntla and from there, he was taken to a private hospital in Nandyal for better treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident has taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said offending vehicle (car bearing No.AP 16 V 2869). Based on the F.I.R lodged by the claimant/injured, a case in Crime No.48 of 1999 for the offence under Section 337 IPC was registered and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-driver for having committed the offence under Section 338 IPC. The claimant filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Claims Tribunal at Kurnool on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. b) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle (car) did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent/New India Assurance Company filed a written statement contending inter alia that the petitioner is put to strict proof of all the averments raised in the petition, that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. It is further averred that the compensation claimed by the injured is highly excessive, speculative, and exorbitant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the compensation claimed by the injured is highly excessive, speculative, and exorbitant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. c) Based on the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 belonging to the first respondent or the petitioner in driving his cycle? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? d) During the trial, in order to establish his claim, the injured B. Siva Sankaraiah was examined as P.W.1, and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 were marked on behalf of the claimant/injured. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company neither examined any witnesses nor adduced any documentary evidence. e) On appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, and placing the reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.4 and B.1 i.e., Certified Copy of FIR, Certified Copy of charge sheet, Certified Copy of Wound Certificate, Medical Bills, and Copy of Insurance Policy respectively, the learned Tribunal by impugned judgment inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 by its driver, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,553/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realization payable by the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally. f) Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the injured is a child aged about 11 years at the time of the accident and without his fault, the driver of the offending vehicle dashed the cycle and caused the accident in which the appellant/claimant sustained a fracture. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager and the claimant is entitled to more compensation in view of the evidence adduced, which was not properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager and the claimant is entitled to more compensation in view of the evidence adduced, which was not properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. He would further submit that the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company though filed a written statement, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on its behalf and the appellant/claimant would urge that the amount of compensation may be determined and just and reasonable compensation may be awarded. He would further submit that the appellant/injured is entitled to more compensation than the amount claimed, in the light of the principles laid down in Raj Kumar?s case. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was arrived at by taking into account all the relevant factors, the award is well reasoned, and therefore, the amount awarded is just and reasonable and the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal do not suffer from any such infirmity or illegality, which may not call for any interference by this Court. 6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are: “1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or warrants interference?” 7. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The accident, involvement of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 and the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in the said accident, are not in dispute. A perusal of the impugned judgment and Award would show that the Tribunal had framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, had observed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 and had answered in favour of the Claimant and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869. 8. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a perusal of the material on record would show, as per the X-ray report, ankle C leg was fractured, Fibula is seen and the Doctor opined in Ex.A.3/Wound Certificate that the above injury is grievous in nature. It is a well-settled principle that while determining the compensation payable to the claimant in the claim filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish and others, 2020 ACJ 1042 observed that it is well-settled law that in motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award “just compensation” and in case the “just compensation” is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially when the claimant is a minor. In another decision in the case of Ward Vs. James, (1965) 1 ALL ER 563, Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th edition, Volume 12 (Page 446) specified three basic principles Accessibility, Uniformity and Predictability to be followed in the like cases and held as follows: "Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good." 9. Further, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Further, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC) wherein it was held as follows: “It is well settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering (2) for loss of amenities, (3) shortened expectation of life, if any, (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both, and (5) medical treatment and other special damages”. 10. If the above three judgments are read together, the intention of the Hon’ble Apex Court is crystal clear that whenever the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal should be assessed that in such cases of compensation no amount of money can compensate the child for the injuries suffered by him and he can never be put back in the same position. However, compensation has to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). The Act requires determination of payment of just compensation and it is the duty of the Court to ensure that he is paid compensation which is just. The compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as “just compensation”. Therefore, the Court/Tribunal should follow the above principles while awarding compensation to the claimants. 11. A perusal of Ex.A.3/certified copy of the Wound Certificate would show that, as per the X-ray report, ankle C leg was fractured, Fibula is seen and the Doctor expressed his opinion that the above injury is grievous in nature and might have been caused in the accident. The injured is a minor aged about 11 years and he might have suffered a lot, but he might not have expressed his pain and sufferance and may not able to communicate with his parents and due to the said injury to his ankle, he might not have moved from home during the period of treatment. 12. The injured is a minor aged about 11 years and he might have suffered a lot, but he might not have expressed his pain and sufferance and may not able to communicate with his parents and due to the said injury to his ankle, he might not have moved from home during the period of treatment. 12. Further, a perusal of Ex.B.1 which is the copy of the insurance policy would show that the same was in force till 04.02.2000. The accident occurred on 28.06.1999. Therefore, the offending vehicle (car) bearing No.AP 16 V 2869 was covered with an insurance policy by the time of the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company has not taken any plea in the written statement that by the date of the accident, neither the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving licence nor the offending vehicle possessed valid policy. The plea taken in the written statement by the Insurance Company that the petitioner/claimant is put to strict proof that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (car) and the petitioner sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal held in Para 5 of the judgment that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the accident was caused due to the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. Coming to the aspect of liability of payment of compensation, the Insurance Company has not come forward to examine the officials of the Insurance Company and from the Transport Department to prove its defence that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and the said offending vehicle was not having a valid policy at the time of the accident, as such the onus would shift on the Insurance Company only to prove the above basic facts and that too the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by the owner to drive the vehicle and was not having a valid licence. But, the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden by examining any of them from the respective departments. But, the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden by examining any of them from the respective departments. Therefore, the fact remains that, by the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was having a valid policy with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and the said policy was in force and the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.4,553/- towards medical bills, which appear to be meager. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the claimant is entitled to the following amounts under various heads by applying the principles in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC). “In Raj Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court has held that award of compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This would include compensation for his inability to lead a full life, enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, as also his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The WP(C) No.7856/2010 Page 5 Supreme Court further laid down the heads under which the compensation is to be awarded in personal injury cases as under: “(5) The heads under which the compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages): (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages): (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads Iii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage), and loss of expectation of life.” 16. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,553/- towards medical bills to the claimant. The parents of the injured who are labourers are not supposed to be that much meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. They might have produced the bills that were available to them. When an injured sustained fracture as stated above, definitely he used to spend more money for his treatment. Therefore, it needs to enhance the compensation from Rs.4,553/- to Rs.50,000/- towards medical bills, transportation, and extra nourishment. 17. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since the injured is a minor, he may not express his sufferance and when he was suffering from a fracture to the ankle, definitely one must assist him during the treatment. The Tribunal had observed that the injury suffered by the claimant is grievous in nature. This is a case where the departure has to be made from the normal rule and the pain and suffering suffered by the child is such that no amount of compensation can compensate. But, no amount was awarded to the above grievous injury which is not just and tenable. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence available in this case. The age of the child and the sustained grievous injury have not been duly taken note of, as held in the judgment of R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, 1995 ACJ 366 (SC) while assessing the non-pecuniary damages i.e., the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Suresh Vs. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, 1995 ACJ 366 (SC) while assessing the non-pecuniary damages i.e., the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 2012 ACJ 2694 (SC) also held as follows: “2...There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.” 19. Applying the aforesaid principle, Courts/Tribunals proceed to assess the compensation. 20. Therefore, it is relevant to refer to another decision in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2013 ACJ 2445 (SC). This is a case where the departure has to be made from the normal rule and the pain and suffering suffered by the child is such that no amount of compensation can compensate. 21. While awarding compensation by the Court/Tribunal one of the factors which must be careful while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to the Court for enhancement of the award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the Court should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding compensation and the amount of Rs.10,000/- granted towards pain and suffering needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, discomforts. 22. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in Rajkumar’s case (referred supra), this Court is of the view that having failed to consider the same, the Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of compensation under the above conventional heads payable to the claimant. 22. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in Rajkumar’s case (referred supra), this Court is of the view that having failed to consider the same, the Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of compensation under the above conventional heads payable to the claimant. Though the Insurance Company filed its written statement, as no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf, definitely, they are liable to pay the compensation amount which is claimed by the claimant. Nothing prevented the Insurance Company to adduce any evidence to prove their defence which was taken in the written statement. In such a case, the learned Tribunal should be more cautious while awarding the compensation when the Insurance Company failed to prove their defence, by following the above principles laid down in the cases referred supra. 23. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/claimant is entitled to more compensation than claimed, a perusal of the record would show that the appellant neither examined the Doctor who treated him, nor produced any disability certificate. In absence of any such evidence, I am of the view that awarding compensation as claimed by the appellant/claimant in the claim petition, is just and proper. 24. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the compensation under the conventional heads in terms of the judgments stated supra. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the definite opinion that the appellant/claimant is entitled to the enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. 1. Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/- 2. Medical Expenses, Transportation, conveyance, extra nourishment and other expenses Rs. 50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- (-) Compensation already awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 14,553/- Total Rs. 85,447/- 25. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the claimant. The compensation is only the means to grant some support for the loss he has suffered with which he is expected to live and the amount awarded under the above heads has to be commensurate with the injury and its impact on the claimant. 26. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the claimant. The compensation is only the means to grant some support for the loss he has suffered with which he is expected to live and the amount awarded under the above heads has to be commensurate with the injury and its impact on the claimant. 26. It is seen that, at the time of filing the claim petition as well as the appeal, the appellant was a minor and was represented by his father as guardian. Now, he would have attained the majority. As such, the appellant can be directed to file an appropriate petition before the Claims Tribunal to declare him as major and after declaring him as major and after discharging his father from guardianship, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest. 27. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed with costs, enhancing the compensation from a sum of Rs.14,553/- to Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. The appellant is directed to file an appropriate petition before the Claims Tribunal to declare him as major and after declaring him as major and after discharging his father from guardianship, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest. The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.