The main legal point established is the need to consider current cost of living and price index in assessing just compensation for motor accident claims involving minors.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and decree dated 15.09.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.40 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.)

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2014 passed by the learned Special District Judge, Special District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri in MCOP No.40 of 2014.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the liability and in view of the fact that the driver of the vehicle, which met with an accident was not in possession of a valid driving license and under those circumstances, the Tribunal ordered for pay and recovery.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the claimant was a minor aged about 10 years old and therefore, the calculation of compensation by the Tribunal is in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishan Gopal and Others vs. Lala and Others [2013 (2) TN MAC 358 (SC)].

4. The accident occurred on 24.01.2011 at about 17.00 Hours in front of Tea Shop at Arasakanahalli Village. Perumbalai Police Station registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2011 under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC. The minor boy died on the way to Salem Government Hospital, who was aged about 10 years at the time of accident and a compensation of Rs.28,55,000/- was claimed.

5. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues and the factum regarding the accident was established before the Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the first respondent-Driver in the claim petition was responsible for the accident and he who committed negligence and accordingly, the accident happened and the minor boy died.

6. The evidence was let in by the appellant/Insurance Company regarding the driving license of the driver and it was found that the driver was not in possession of a valid driving license at the time of accident. In the absence of establishing the fact that the driver was not in possession of a valid license, then the Tribunal ought to have ordered for pay and recovery, enabling the appellant/Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle.

7. As far as the pay and recovery order is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the driver, who was driven the vehicle, which met with an accident, was not in possession of valid driving license and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company has to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle, after paying the same to the victim. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,10,000/-. The future prospects was calculated and a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- was awarded, loss of income was calculated and a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- was awarded. The monthly income of Rs.3,000/- was fixed for the minor boy aged about 10 years and 15 multiplier was applied.

8. It is relevant to consider the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishan Gopal and Others vs. Lala and Others (cited supra). As far as the 10 years old boy is concerned, the Apex Court considered various aspects and fixed the compensation at Rs.5 lakhs. Paragraph-18 of the judgment, cited supra, is relevant with reference to the fixation of compensation, more specifically, for a 10 years old boy, who died in the accident and the same is extracted as under:-

“18. Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered together in favour of the appellants for the following reasons.

The Tribunal having answered the contentious Issue 1, against the appellants in its judgment the same is concurred with by the High Court by assigning erroneous reasons and it has affirmed dismissal of the cla