IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 294 of 2009()
1. PAULY GEORGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JINCE GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE PALAKUNNEL
... Respondent
2. P.K.KRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR
3. K.T.MURIAKOSE, S/O. K.K.THOMAS,
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SMT.ANEY PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :11/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
M.A.C.A.No.294 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February 2009
J U D G M E N T
R.BASANT,J
The first claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant
before us. He, along with his wife and two children, had claimed
compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the
death of the daughter of the claimant, aged 13 years, in a motor
accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that only the
appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation. Though an
amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal awarded only
Rs.2,27,750/- as compensation. The appellant/claimant claims to
be aggrieved by the impugned award. Adequate quantum of
compensation has not been awarded, it is contended. The crux
of the challenge is that compensation awarded for loss of
dependency at Rs.2,00,000/- is not adequate and sufficient.
2. We have considered all the relevant circumstances.
The deceased/child was aged only 13 years and was obviously a
school student at the time of her death. The claimant/appellant
was aged 45 years at the time of death of the child. The Tribunal
M.A.C.A.No.294/02009 2
appears to have guesstimated and came to the conclusion that
the child must have earned an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month
later in her life after she completes her education and secures
employment. The Tribunal took note of the probability that the
deceased girl child must have soon got married also. Having
considered all these, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was fixed as the
quantum of compensation payable for loss of dependency.
Viewed from any angle, we are not persuaded to agree that the
quantum awarded under the head of loss of dependency
deserves or warrants interference at the instance of the
appellant/claimant. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied
that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of
loss of dependency is absolutely fair, reasonable and just and at
any rate, the appellant/claimant can have no room to complain.
3. This M.A.C.A is in these circumstances dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)
jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge
M.A.C.A.No.294/02009 3
M.A.C.A.No.294/02009 4
R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
06/02/2009