3/2552 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion (No. 533) 2009
Dalika Fuungsiriviboon Plaintiff By Mr.Chaot-uthai Fuungsiriviboon
vs. Mr. Boonruen Netniyom Defendant

Re: Non-monetary damages and acting on behalf of a minor

Civil  Non-monetary damage, Persons with parental rights and acting on behalf of a minor (Section 446  paragraph 1, 1574 (12))

When a person commits a wrongful act to a minor, the minor possesses the rights to claim for compensation which will then become the property of the minor.  In the case of having a compromise agreement, the person parental rights has to act on behalf of the minor as a legal representative and should apply to the court to obtain permission for this right before compromising since it relates to the property of the minor as prescribed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1574 (12).  Ch., the lawful father of the Plaintiff, made a compromise with the Defendants about the damages and medical expenses for the Plaintiff and Ch and also promised that there would be no further complaint for damages in either a civil or criminal case.  It was an abatement of a wrongful act dispute and regarded as a compromise agreement.  But Ch.  made this agreement on his own without obtaining permission from the Court, so the agreement was violating the law, was thus voided and did not bind the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff‘s right to claim for compensation was not terminated.

The Plaintiff lost her visual capability as her left eye was unable to see things in detail and in wide range as ordinary people do.  This loss was regarded as non-monetary damage as prescribed by Civil and Commercial Code, Section 446, Paragraph 1.  The wrongful actor had to pay for such damages because the liability was not merely limited to medical expenses.   Bodily injury, defacement and endurance of pain were the damages occurred with the Plaintiff which was not a pecuniary loss and the Plaintiff possessed the right to claim for the compensation of such damages as prescribed under Civil and Commercial Code, Section 446, Paragraph 1.
----------------------------------------------------

The Plaintiff filed a personal injury complaint that the Defendant must pay compensation at 500,000.-baht with 7.5 percent interest rate per year, starting from January 1, 2009 until the day the payment was completed.

The Defendant pleaded and amended the plea by asking the Court to dismiss the case.

The Trial Court ordered the Defendant to pay the compensation at 500,000.- baht with 7.5 percent interest rate per year, starting from January 1, 2009 until the day the payment was completed.  The Defendant had to pay Trial Court fees and 5,000.-baht lawyer fees for the Plaintiff.

The Defendant appealed to the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court, Region 1, affirmed and ordered the Defendant to pay Appellate Court’s fees and 3,000.-baht lawyer fees for the Plaintiff.

The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided that “…there was a problem to consider whether the Plaintiff’s right to request the compensation had been terminated.   According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1574 (12), when a person commits a wrongful act to a minor, the minor possesses rights to claim for compensation which will become the property of the minor.  In case of having a compromise agreement, the person exercising parental power has to act on behalf of the minor as a legal representative and should obtain permission from the court before compromising since it relates to the property of the minor.   Mr. Chaot-uthai., the lawful father of the Plaintiff, made a compromise with the Defendants about the damages and medical expenses for the Plaintiff and Mr. Chaot-uthai., and also promised that there would be no further complaint for damages from both civil and criminal case as revealed in Case Daily Report.  It was an abatement of wrongful act dispute and regarded as a compromise agreement.  But Ch. made this agreement on his own without obtaining permission from the Court, so the agreement was violating the law, was thus voided and did not bind the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff‘s right to claim for compensation was not terminated.  The Appellate Court, Region 1, had legitimately decided this case.  The appeal of the Defendant for this point is not sound.

The final problem to consider was whether the Appellate Court, Region 1, had legitimately set for the damages.  The fact was that the Plaintiff lost her visual capability since her left eye is unable to see things in details and in wide range as ordinary people do.  The loss is regarded as non-monetary damage as prescribed by Civil and Commercial Code, Section 446, Paragraph 1.  The Appellate Court set 400,000.-baht for the damages which was legitimated.  Moreover, the Defendants appealed that the Appellate Court set 100,000.-baht for the Plaintiff’s injury to body and health, defaced and endurance of pain and argued that the amount is too high.   The Court sees that the damages occurred with the Plaintiff which was not a pecuniary loss and the Plaintiff possessed the right to claim for the compensation of such damages as prescribed under Civil and Commercial Code, Section 446, Paragraph 1.  The appeal of the Defendant for this point is also not sound.”

The Supreme Court affirmed and ordered the Defendant to pay 3,000.-baht lawyer fees for the Plaintiff.

(Veeravat Pavarajarn  –  Montri Sri-iemsa-ard  –   Thanan Vankovit)
Kittitat angkurjaruchai – summarized
Arthit Savavasu-checked