SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
Insurance Company – Appellant
Versus
Claimants – Respondent
M.A.C.A. No.45 of 2021 | M.A.C.A. No.2000 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Mathews Jacob, Smt. Preethi R Nair
For the Respondents: Sri. M. Sadiqali, Sri. Nimod A.R.

The omission of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act necessitates the application of minimum wages for skilled workers to determine notional income in compensation claims for the death of a minor.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for death of a minor - Tribunal awarded Rs.17,47,000/- based on notional income of Rs.18,000/- per month, which was contested by both parties - Court emphasized that the notional income should be based on the minimum wage for skilled workers as per the Minimum Wages Act - The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was omitted, leading to a need for a revised approach to compensation - Court held that compensation must reflect just and fair principles, applying a multiplier system for minor's death claims - Notional income fixed at Rs.18,900/- per month, with future prospects of 40% applied. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 45, 48)

(B) Legal principles regarding compensation - The court stated that the loss suffered by the family due to a minor's death cannot be quantified in monetary terms, but compensation must be just and fair, reflecting societal obligations. (Paras 10, 36)

(C) Issues - Whether the tribunal's fixation of notional income was appropriate, and how the omission of the Second Schedule affects compensation claims. (Paras 9, 20)

(D) Findings of Court - The appeal by the insurance company was partly allowed, reducing future prospects from 50% to 40%, while the claimants' appeal was allowed, enhancing total compensation. (Paras 45, 48) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court concluded that the omission of the Second Schedule necessitates a fresh approach to determine compensation, advocating for the use of the minimum wage for skilled laborers as the basis for notional income. (Paras 20, 44) (F) Result - Appeals allowed with enhanced compensation of Rs.7,83,400/- with interest. (Paras 48)

Table of Content
1. court addresses compensation for a minor's death. (Para 1 , 2)
2. dispute over the adequacy of compensation awarded. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court considers the application of compensation principles. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court reviews precedents for calculating compensation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. impact of legislative changes on compensation claims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. legal interpretation of omitted provisions in compensation law. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. court's approach to fixing notional income for minors. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. arguments regarding parity in compensation for minors. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
9. court concludes on the method for notional income calculation. (Para 43 , 44)
10. court orders enhanced compensation and interest. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

JUDGMENT

“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. 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 inPreethu 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 c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top