Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. Kajal was a bright young girl. She used to attend school, play with her friends and lead a normal life like any other child. Unfortunately, on 18^th October, 2007, while Kajal was travelling on a tractor with her parents, the tractor was hit by a truck which was driven rashly. In the said accident, Kajal suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to her brain. This has had very serious consequences on her. She was examined at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGI, Chandigarh for short), for assessment of her disability. According to the said report, because of head injury Kajal is left with a very low I.Q. and severe weakness in all her four limbs, suffers from severe hysteria and severe urinary incontinence. Her disability has been assessed as 100%.

2. Dr. Chhabra (PW-4), who was one of the members of the Board which issued the disability certificate (Ex. P6) stated that as per the assessment her I.Q. is less than 20% of a child of her age and her social age is only of a 9 month old child. This means that Kajal while lying on the bed will grow up to be an adult with all the physical and biological attributes which a woman would get on attaining adulthood, including menstruation etc., but her mind will remain of a 9 month old child. Basically, she will not understand what is happening all around her.

3. How does one assess compensation in such a case? No amount of money can compensate this child for the injuries suffered by her. She can never be put back in the same position. However, compensation has to be determined in terms of the provisions of 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 she is paid compensation which is just.

4. Kajal through her father filed a claim petition, under the Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT for short) awarded Rs. 11,08,501/- and held that since there was violation of the terms of policy the insurance company would pay the amount but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner. The Hig........