Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SHABNA – Appellant
Versus
SUHARA – Respondent
MACA 2500/2017
SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN, SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
The court recalculated compensation for a minor's death in a motor accident, emphasizing just and reasonable standards, resulting in an award of Rs. 10,33,100.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140 and 166 - Compensation for death of minor in motor accident - Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,55,000/-; appeal sought enhancement based on notional income - Court found Tribunal's compensation inadequate, recalculating total to Rs. 10,33,100/- including loss of dependency, loss of estate, and pain and suffering. (Paras 6, 16, 21)
(B) Compensation - Determination of notional income for minors - Court accepted higher notional income based on precedents and inflation adjustments, applying multiplier of 15. (Paras 12, 16)
(C) Legal principles - Compensation must reflect just and reasonable standards, considering loss of consortium and pain and suffering. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, mother and siblings of a 6-year-old child, sought compensation after the child died due to injuries from a falling tree caused by a negligent driver of a JCB. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 6,55,000/-.
Findings of Court:
The court recalculated the compensation to Rs. 10,33,100/- based on a higher notional income and additional heads of claim.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded was just and reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's compensation was inadequate and recalculated it based on established legal precedents for minors.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, total compensation modified to Rs. 10,33,100/-.
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No. 360/ 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)
2. The O.P. was filed under under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , by the mother and minor siblings of a 6 year old child, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.04.2014. According to them, on 16.04.2014, at about 2 p.m., while the deceased was standing, a JCB bearing Reg.No. KL 08-AG-6340 owned by the 1st respondent and negligently driven by the 2nd respondent pulled out an arecanut tree, so that it fell down on the body of the child and as a result of which the child sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day while under treatment.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver, 3rd respondent is the insurer of the JCB. The 4th respondent is the father of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the JCB. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.2,12,000/-
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A4. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,55,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.A.V.M Salahuddeen, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri. P.K.Manojkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.30,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the notional income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.
11. The Tribunal after taking the notional annual income of the minor child at Rs. 30,000/-, applied multiplier 15 and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,55,000/-, including loss of dependency Rs. 2,25,000/-, love affection Rs. 4,00,000/-, funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- and Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000/-.
12. Relying upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Master Jyothis Raj Krishna v. Sunny George and others [ MACA NO. 223/2021], decided on 18.11.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that, in that case, the notional income of a 5 year-old child involved in an accident in the year 2016 in paraparesis state was fixed at Rs. 17,325/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of a Single bench of this Court in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Mujeeb Rahman A.P [2025 KHC OnLine 74], would argue that minimum wages a skilled labourer is to be taken as the notional income of a minor child.
13. Relying upon the decision of the Delhi High court in The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. v. Smt Sushila & Ors (MACA No. 369/2022), decided on 04.03.2025 and Sh. Uma Shankar and Anr v, Sh. Sunny And Ors. (MACA No. 68/2020) decided on 24.02.2025 to substantiate his argument that, the Minimum wages of a skilled worker is to be taken as the notional income of a child. He has also produced a notification of the Kerala Government dated 20.10.2015
