IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 289 of 2000(B)
1. PALAKUNDAN HAMZA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUSHMANKOTIL MARAKKAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.LAL GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :23/08/2007
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & V. Giri, JJ.
========================
M.F.A.No.289 of 2000
========================
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
A 13 year old girl died in a motor accident. It was found by
the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligent
driving of the vehicle by the first respondent. The vehicle was
owned by the second respondent and insured with the third
respondent.
2. The accident occurred on 1.12.1992. The appellants
were respectively father, aged 44 years and mother aged, 38
years old. The Tribunal awarded only a total compensation of
Rs.35,000/- with interest and cost and the only the quantum of
compensation is disputed. It is true that the accident occurred
prior to the framing of second Schedule. A notional income of a
MFA 289/00 -: 2 :-
non-earning child is fixed at Rs.15,000/- per year under second
Schedule. Here, the accident occurred in 1992 two years prior to
the framing of the second Schedule. So we are of the opinion
that Rs.12,000/- will be taken as the notional income. If that be
so after deducting 1/3rd, Rs.9,000/- will be the monthly
contribution too the family that can be calculated for loss of
dependency. As already stated, father was 44 and the mother
was 38 and 15 can be taken as the multiplier. If that be so,
Rs.1,20,000/- will be the compensation in the case of death of a
13 year old girl. Out of this Rs.25,000/- was granted towards
loss of dependency by the Tribunal. If that is taken, the balance
will be Rs.95,000/-. The above additional amount of Rs.95,000/-
should be deposited by the third respondent – Insurance
Company with 6% interest per annum from the date of
application till the date of deposit. On deposit of the amount, the
claimants are entitled to withdraw the same.
3. Since there was no licence, the Tribunal has allowed the
Insurance Company to get the amount reimbursed from the
insured. No appeal is filed against the above. Hence, we have
not changed that direction. Notice on the delay condonation
MFA 289/00 -: 3 :-
petition sent to the insured was returned twice unclaimed and
therefore the notice was declared served and the delay is
condoned. In view of the delay, we have allowed only interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application.
Appeal is partly allowed.
J.B.Koshy,
Judge.
V.Giri,
Judge.
ess 25/8