The court established that notional income for minors must be assessed with reference to relevant case law, ensuring the compensation reflects an appropriate valuation of loss.

JUDGMENT

The appellants/claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have filed this appeal against the award passed in M.C.O.P No.94 of 2019 (Jayankondam Sub Court) MCOP No.137 of 2019 dated 17.03.2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Special Court II) Jayankondam, seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimants are the parents of the deceased Vijayaraj, who was a 14 year old boy, studying in the 7th Standard. The deceased was traveling as a pillion rider driven by the 1st respondent on 17.05.2019 and the vehicle was going from south to north at Silambur to Pukuzhi Main Road and at about 10.00 a.m., the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed on the two wheeler and the minor boy sustained grievous injuries all over his body and unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No.112 of 2019. It is under these circumstances, the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking for compensation.

3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent, who was riding the two wheeler. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the compensation and the total compensation was fixed at Rs.8,11,000/-

in the following manner:

The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at

7.5% p.a. The claimants, not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have approached this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation.

4. Heard Mr.P.Parthikannan, learned counsel for appellants/claimants and Mr.G.Vasudevamn, learned counsel for second respondent insurance company.

5. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

6. This Court also carefully went through the award passed by the Tribunal.

7. The main ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal had fixed the notional income as Rs.45,000/- and applied the 15 multiplier and determined the compensation under the head of loss of income. The learned counsel submitted that the income that was fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

8. In the case on hand, the deceased was a 14 year old boy, who was studying in the 7th standard. While fixing the loss of income insofar as minor children are concerned, it is relevant to take note of the judgement of the Apex Court in [Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others] reported in 2014 1 SCC 244. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder :-

34.Since we have set aside the findings and reasons recorded by both the Tribunal and the High Court on the contentious Issues 1 and 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 the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the MV Act, at Clause 6 which refers to notional income for compensation to those persons who had no income prior to the accident.

35. The relevant portion of Clause 6 states as under:

“6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident—

***

(a) Non-earning persons— Rs 15,000 p.a.”

The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the MV Act, is considered by this Cou