Loading...

The New India Assurance Company … vs A.K.Muraleedhara Kurup on 14 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Company … vs A.K.Muraleedhara Kurup on 14 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2365 of 2007()


1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. A.K.MURALEEDHARA KURUP,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AJITHA M.KURUP, W/O.MURALEEDHARA KURUP,

3. ANOOP M.KURUP (MINOR), DO. DO.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :14/12/2009

 O R D E R
         P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.

                    -------------------------------

                     M.A.C.A. No.2365 of 2007

                    -------------------------------

               Dated this the 14th December, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

Appellant is the Insurer of the vehicle. A thirteen

year old girl child died in a motor accident, while the child along

with her parents and brother were travelling in a car, a bus

came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner

hit the car, and due to forceful impact of the hitting, all the

passengers sustained severe injuries. They were taken to the

Government Hospital, Kayamkulam, and thereafter to the Medical

College Hospital, Alappuzha. While undergoing treatment, the

girl child succumbed to the injuries on 11.9.1998 at 3 p.m. It

is submitted that she was a brilliant student in her studies and

had bright future prospects. For the untimely death of the girl

child, it brought irreparable agony to the family and for the loss

MACA. 2365 of 2007

2

suffered by the family, compensation was claimed for an amount

of Rs.3,68,000/- under different heads.

2. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred as

a result of the negligent driving of the bus driver and proceeded

to calculate the compensation. The Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.3,25,000/- in all by way of compensation under

different heads. Hence, this appeal challenging the quantum.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

contended that the notional income of the minor was taken as

Rs.15,000/- per year, but one-third towards personal expenses

was not deducted. According to the counsel, only after deducting

one-third, the balance could be taken as the multiplicand. In this

connection, the learned counsel also placed reliance on New

India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sathender (2006 (4) KLT 974)

and held that in cases of death of young children, neither their

income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future

increase in their income, nor chances of advancement of their

MACA. 2365 of 2007

3

carrier are capable of proper determination on an estimated

basis.

4. We heard both sides. The fact that a minor child

is not earning as such any income by itself is no reason to deny

the dependency compensation to the parents, when due regard is

given to the fact that parents live on hope and expectation of

their children. The deceased girl was stated to be a bright

student and she is likely to have bright prospects in future. The

parents have got only two children and this is the only girl child.

Therefore, considering all these aspects into consideration, we

find that it will not be just or reasonable to calculate the amount

in a mechanical manner, since the very income is notionally

fixed, while taking one-third therefrom, the other factors cannot

be lost sight of. In this case, only an amount of Rs.10,000/-

was paid towards the ‘loss of love and affection’ to the parents.

According to us, the loss of the only girl child cannot be

compensated strictly in terms of money. Therefore, considering

the totality of facts into consideration, only an amount of

MACA. 2365 of 2007

4

Rs.50,000/- be reduced from the total amount of Rs.3,25,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal, and the balance amount is considered

to be a just and reasonable compensation.

To the above extent, the appeal is allowed. No

cost.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

nj.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information