JUDGEMENT

Challenging the Decree and Judgment dated 09.08.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.1405 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court) Namakkal, (transferred from Sankagiri Sub Court in MCOP.No.413 of 1995), the claimants have come up with this appeal.

2. It is the case of the appellants that, on 20.10.1994 at about 04.30 pm., when the deceased/claimant was returning home from school in the main road from Trichengode to Salem in Suryagoundampalayam, a tempo van bearing Regn.No.TN-28-Y-7556, owned by the 2nd respondent, insured with the 3rd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit behind the deceased, due to which, she sustained fatal injuries all over her body and she attained vegetative state. Thereby, she filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. After contest, the tribunal, vide impugned judgment awarded a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-, payable by the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation fixed by the tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, during the pendency of this appeal, deceased/claimant passed away and thereby the 2nd & 3rd appellants, father and mother of the deceased were impleaded as the Legal representatives. Admittedly, the above said accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tempo and at the time of accident, the deceased/claimant was only aged about 4 years and due to the injuries sustained by her, she went to vegetative state and unable to lead her life in a normal manner and the PW2, Doctor, who treated the deceased, issued a Disability certificate, marked as Ex.P2, holding that the deceased sustained 100% permanent disability. However, without considering any of the above said facts, the tribunal had mechanically awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- without adopting the multiplier method, which cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, he prayed for necessary orders of this Court, enhancing the compensation fixed by the tribunal.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/

Insurance Company submitted that, by considering all the relevant documents placed before it, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties.

Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The only grievance of the appellants is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded. It is claimed by the 2nd and 3rd appellants that, though the deceased was only aged about 4 years and was not contributing to the income of the family, however, if the deceased had not met with the above said accident, she would have completed her studies and would have contributed to the family. Whileso, without considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- alone. It has been the view of the courts that even a housewife is entitled to monthly income to be fixed for the purpose of qualifying their work for the purpose of quantifying the amount receivable by them. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, this Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.2000/- can be fixed as the notional income. However, considering the age of the child, being 4 years at the time of the accident and the deceased was in a vegetative state from the date of the accident in the year 1994 and the deceased having passed away during the pendency of the present appeal, i.e., after 2014, this Court is of the considered view that it would be neither in the interest of justice to deduct any a