IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 921 of 2002(E)
1. RAJESH, S/O. VELAYUDHAN,
... Petitioner
2. BRIGIT SHERLY, W/O. OF RAJESH.
Vs
1. MARY PAUL, W/O. PAUL,
... Respondent
2. JAMES, S/O. CLEAVUS, ARESSERY VEETTIL,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.S.PATTALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :27/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.NO.921 OF 2002
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J:
A three year old child sustained fatal injuries in a motor
accident on 9.4.1999 and his parents applied for compensation under
Section 163 A of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal found that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle and directed the insurance company to deposit the
amount of compensation awarded. But against a claim of
Rs.5,95,500/, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.56,500/=. The only
dispute in this appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation.
The Tribunal has calculated the compensation as it is a claim under
Section 166. Since it is a claim under Section 163 A, compensation
should be calculated strictly as per 2nd schedule in view of the
statutory mandate. The child was three years old. Only notional
income can be fixed and notional income as per 2nd schedule of a
non earning person is Rs.15,000/=. Even though it is contended
that since the accident occurred in the year 1999, after four years
of framing 2nd schedule, a higher notional income shall be fixed,only
MFA.NO.921/02 .
2
only Rs.15,000/= can be taken as the notional income in view of
statutory provision and one third has to be deducted from
calculating compensation for loss of family contribution. Even
though it is contended that 18 ought to have been taken as the
multiplier, considering the age of the first claimant, we can take
only lowest multiplier and 15 can be taken as the multiplier as
per 2nd schedule. Therefore compensation payable for loss of
dependency and fatal injury is Rs.1,50,000/=. As per 2nd
schedule compensation payable for funeral expenses is Rs.2,000/=
and Rs.2,500/= for loss of estate. Even though for medical
expenses Rs.15,000/= can be granted, it should be supported by
bills. Therefore Rs.1,000/= fixed by the Tribunal can be granted.
The Tribunal has granted compensation for by standers expenses,
damage etc which cannot be granted. Since compensation was
claimed under Section 163 A, the compensation payable in this case
will be Rs.1,50,000/= for death, Rs.2,000/= for funeral expenses,
Rs.2,500/= for loss of estate Rs.2,500/= and Rs.1,000/= for medical
expenses. Therefore, total compensation payable will be
Rs.1,58,000/=. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal
was Rs.56,500/=. Therefore the additional compensation payable
will be Rs. 1,01,500/=. The additional amount of Rs.1,01,500/=
MFA.NO.921/02 .
3
should be deposited by the insurance company with 7% interest
from the date of application till the deposit over and above the
decreed amount. On deposit of the amount, the appellants are
allowed to withdraw the same in equal proportion.
The appeal is allowed in part.
J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE.
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
cl
MFA.NO.921/02 .
4
J.B. KOSHY &
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.
M.F.A.NO.921 OF 2002
JUDGMENT
27th day of June, 2008.