The court established that in compensation claims for the death of a minor, the notional income should be based on minimum wages, especially after the omission of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. “Death is certain in life but yet the timing remains uncertain.” Death of a 15-year old child is inconsolable. No amount can compensate the parents for loss of their ward. Yet the award of compensation will remain thin commiseration.”

1.1 In these appeals this Court is called upon to decide the quantum of compensation required to be awarded on account of the death of a minor Child. M.A.C.A. No. 45 of 2021 is preferred by the insurance company and M.A.C.A. No. 2000 of 2022 is preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. Brief facts for disposal of these appeals are as follows:

On 24.04.2018 at 12.30 pm, while one Yasin Hydar A.P. a student, aged 15 years, was travelling in a car bearing Registration No. KL-57-K-4410 and when it reached at Kalandithazham, it hit against an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-57-4074. As a result of the accident, the deceased was thrown out of the car resulting in serious injuries and later succumbing to the injuries. On behalf of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on the side of the insurance company. The tribunal proceeded to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/- per month and deducted half (½) of the same towards the personal expenses and granted a total compensation of Rs. 17,47,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Forty Seven Thousand only).

3. According to the Insurance Company the grant of compensation is exorbitant whereas, the claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is insufficient.

4. Heard Sri. Mathews Jacob, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Smt. Preethi R. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, Sri. M. Sadiqali, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri. Nimod A.R. the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court.

5. The appeal preferred by the insurance company shall be dealt with first since the decision of this Court in this appeal will have an impact on the appeal preferred by the claimants. Sri. Mathews P. Jacob, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Smt. Preethy R Nair, appearing for the insurance company contended that the tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at Rs. 18,000/- per month. In respect of a child who is aged less than 15 years, according to the learned Senior counsel, the tribunal could not have fixed the notional income and should have applied the principles of global compensation as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others, 2023 (1) SCC 204. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Preethu and others vs. Sukumaran P and another, MACA No. 595 of 2021 dated 6.9.2024 rendered by E.S. (J). It is further submitted that the tribunal had applied 50% of the income towards future prospects whereas, only 40% can be taken. This, according to the learned Senior counsel, is an alternate submission if this Court finds that the fixation of the notional income is inevitable.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that it has become the necessity of the day to revisit the law laid down by this Court on this point. Referring to the decision of this Court in National Insurance Company vs. K.K. Assainar and others, 2019 (4) KLT 39, the learned counsel submitted that the principles laid down by this Court in the above decision requires to be revisited in the light of the subsequent judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. Sri. Nimod A.R., the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that irrespective of the age of the deceased/claimant, even if the claimant or the victim being a minor, the Court should apply the minimum wages to arrive at the notional income. This according to the learned Amicus Curiae is inevitable because the principle enshrined under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires the tribunal and the court to fix just and fair com