High Court Kerala High Court

United India Insurance Company … vs Joseph on 28 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company … vs Joseph on 28 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 16 of 2007()


1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOSEPH, S/O. THOMAS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUNI, W/O. JOSEPH  -DO-.

3. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, S/O. MADASAMI,

4. M. MURUGAN, S/O. MADASAMI -DO-.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.BABY THOMAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :28/11/2008

 O R D E R
               J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
               ================================
                    M.A.C.A.No.16 of 2007 - A
                ===============================
          Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008.

                         J U D G M E N T

KOSHY, J.

A four year old child sustained fatal injuries on 16.9.2000.

She was taken to the hospital, life saving medicines were given

but ultimately she died. Total compensation including

reimbursement of medical expences awarded by the Tribunal is

Rs.2,38,900/-. Insurance company challenges the quantum of

compensation in this appeal. Accident occurred on 16.9.2000.

Tribunal has fixed Rs.1,500/- as notional monthly income and

deducted one third for calculating family contribution. Loss of a

child cannot be measured in terms of money. However,

compensation has to be calculated on the basis of notional basis

only. Under 2nd schedule, notional income of a non-earning

person is fixed as Rs.1,250/- (Rs.15,000/- per year). But that

sum of Rs.15,000/- per year was fixed in the year 1994. The

accident in this case occurred in 2000. Considering the erosion of

money value after 7 years, we are of the opinion that Rs.1,500/-

M.A.C.A.No.16 of 2007 – A 2

fixed as monthly income is not excessive so as to warrant

interference by this Court. It is true that when a child dies,

multiplier cannot be fixed on the basis of the age of the child as

fixed in 2nd schedule as is applicable under Section 166. But age

of the claimants should be taken into account. Here, mother was

aged only 29. Going by the 2nd schedule, 18 is the multiplier.

Father was aged 37. Then, 16 is the multiplier. Going by the 2nd

schedule of age of the child, 15 is the multiplier. Tribunal has

taken the lowest multiplier. Therefore, in this case,

compensation has been granted in a reasonable manner. We find

no ground to interfere with the same and accordingly, the appeal

is dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE

bkn/-