IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 MFA.No. 533 of 2003() --------------------- OPMV.242/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS ---------------------- 1. A.CHANDRAN S/O. APPAYI, MARUTHAMKADU HOUSE, VANOOR, KATTUSSERY AMSOM, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. GIRIJA W/O. CHANDRAN, AGED 28 YEARS, MARUTHAMKADU HOUSE, VANOOR, KATTUSSERY AMSOM, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.VARGHESE KURIAKOSE SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 37, METUPALAYAM, COIMBATORE-43, TAMIL NADU. 2. SUBRAMANIAN S/O. MARUTHACHALAM (DELETED), NO. 2/22, NARAYANAN CHETTIYAR STREET, POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU. (THE NAME OF R2 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DTD. 8.1.08 ON I.A.NO.2206/2007) BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.533 OF 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated 7th April, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A twelve year old boy who was studying in seventh standard sustained fatal injuries and died in an accident on 23.9.1995. Total amount awarded by the Tribunal was only Rs.65,500/=. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal as Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the second respondent driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent. We are only considering the question of quantum of compensation in this appeal. 2. According to the appellants, their son sustained fatal injuries in the accident. It is true that he was only a student and not earning anything at the time of accident. But, it cannot be stated that the son if grown up will not support the parents in their old age. In any event, loss of a son cannot be valued in terms of money. Therefore, compensation can be calculated only on the scientific method. Second schedule framed under section 163-A can be as a guideline for calculating compensation under section 166 also. Rs.15,000/= is the notional income prescribed under the second schedule even for a minor MFA.533/2003 2 child who is not studied at all. Here, the child was 12. Therefore, the apt multiplier is 15. Father was 38 and mother was 28. If father's age is taken into account, multiplier prescribed in the second schedule is 16 and if mother's age is taken into account, as per the second schedule the apt multiplier is 18. We take the lowest of the multiplier, i.e., 15 for calculating compensation. One third of the notional income is to be deducted for calculating compensation. Therefore, compensation payable in this case is Rs.10,000 x 15 = Rs.1,50,000/-. Tribunal has given only Rs.50,000/= for loss of family contribution and loss of support to the family. Therefore, claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/= than that was awarded by the Tribunal. The above Rs.1,00,000/= should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, appellants are allowed to withdraw the same in equal proportion. Appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE MFA.533/2003 3 tks