Compensation for minors in fatal accidents should reflect potential contributions, with a notional income of Rs.30,000/- applied, leading to an enhanced total of Rs.5,00,000/-.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the award dated 22.04.2013 made in MCOP No.1814 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.

2. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that, on 28.03.2010 at about 06.00 hours, when the deceased Agalya was sitting at Megavannan Tea Stall, E.C.R. Road, Illayanthoppu, Kanchi District, at that time, a Omni Van bearing Regn.No.TN-51-T-9966, owned by the 1^st respondent insured with the 2^nd respondent driven by its driver which was proceeding from Pondicherry towards Chennai came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Agalya, due to which she sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thereby, the appellants/claimants, who are the parent of the deceased Agalya filed a claim petition before the tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.4 and on the side of the respondents no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, though came to a conclusion that the accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1^st respondent, however, awarded a meagre amount of Rs.2,95,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Agalya. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come up with this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the accident is of the year 2010 and at the time of accident, the minor deceased was aged about 5 years. However, the Tribunal had fixed the notional income of the minor deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is on the lower side and the same requires to be re-considered by this Court. Further, the compensation awarded under the other heads are also on the lower side, which requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate enhancement in favour of the appellants.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent-insurance company submitted that, by considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under various heads, which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The factum and manner of the accident is not in dispute. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The only grievance of the appellants/claimants is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. The major grievance of the appellants is that, the accident is of the year 2010 and the age of the deceased minor is 5 years, however, the Tribunal, had fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum.

8. In this context, this Court relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 in the case of Kishan Gopal and Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. wherein the Apex Court had directed a sum of Rs.30,000/- to be fixed as annual income for the children below 10 to 15 years for the accident. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the said order is extracted as follows:

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

*****

Since we have set aside the findings and reasons recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on the contentious issue Nos. 1 & 2 by recording our reasons in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and we have answered the point in favour of the Appellants and also examined the claim of the Appellants to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the Appellants as they have lost their affectionate 10 year old son. For this purpose, it would be necessary for us to refer to Second Schedule Under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, at claus