IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1513 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.753/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ A. MOHAMMED ANSARI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE S. ABDUL RAHIM, SRUTHI MEENA NAGAR, KALMAPDAPAM, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. GOPIDASAN V.K., S/O.KUNCHU, VADAKKEPURA HOUSE, VARODE P.O., KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD (OWNER OF CAR KL9 S 2804) 2. MOHAMMED ALI.K.,S/O.SYED MOHAMMED, THANIKAL HOUSE, OOUVANKAD, PERUNGOTTUKURISI, PALAKKAD. (DRIVER OF CAR KL9 S 2804) 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISION NO.10, FLAT NO.106, NI BMC HOUSE, CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI. (INSURER OF CAR KL9 S 2804) 4. K.T. MEHARUNNEESA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.MOHAMMED ANSARI, SRUTHI MEENA NAGAR, KALMAPDAPAM, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. 5. SHAHANAS AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.A.MOHAMMED ANSARI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE S. ABDUL RAHIM, SRUTHI MEENA NAGAR, KALMAPDAPAM, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1513 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The appellant herein was the first claimant before the court below. He along with his wife and one of the minor sons had staked compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the motor accident which took place on 20.09.2006. Another minor son of the parents had suffered injuries in the motor accident and had succumbed to those injuries. The claimants claimed compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. The claim was staked under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Against a total claim of Rs.8 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,94,000/- as compensation as per the details given in para.9 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Transportation expenses Rs. 2,000.00 2 Loss of dependency Rs.1,80,000.00 M.A.C.A No.1513/11 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs.1,94,000.00 The 3rd respondent/insurer was made entirely liable to satisfy the impugned award. 3. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant/1st claimant and the learned counsel for the insurance company have advanced their arguments. The other claimants are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5. Challenge is raised against the impugned award only on the ground of inadequacy of quantum of compensation. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation amount of Rs.1,94,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is, at any rate, grossly insufficient and inadequate. The amount of compensation cannot be said to be fair, reasonable or just. Deceased was a child, aged 14 years. The deceased was studying in the 8th standard. Though it was claimed that he was a brilliant student, no evidence has been produced before the Tribunal to prove any special accomplishments of the child. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, was left to decide the case solely on the basis of M.A.C.A No.1513/11 3 Exts.A1 to A9 documents and no oral evidence whatsoever. None of these documents produced throw any light on the possible income that the child may have earned or the legitimate expectations of the parents. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in any view of the matter, the amount of compensation awarded is grossly insufficient. At least the amount payable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act should have been awarded to the claimants, contends the learned counsel. The learned counsel places reliance on the decisions in National Insurance Company v. Muneer [2003(1) KLT 137] and Abdulla V. Abdulkhader Kunju [2011(3) KLT S.N 158] and Sreedevi V. K.S.R.T.C [2011(3) KLT 716]. 6. Computation of compensation payable in respect of the death of a minor child, who has not completed his preliminary education, is one of the vexing problems in the law of computation of compensation. Especially so in a case like the instant one where no material whatsoever has been placed before Court. In these circumstances, this Court had spelt out a principle. In all such cases, at least the amount payable under Section 163A of the M.V Act ought to be paid to the claimants. M.A.C.A No.1513/11 4 We completely agree with the said view. We are satisfied that going by the structured formula under Section 163A of the M.V Act, the claimant in the instant case will be entitled to a total amount of Rs.2,44,500/- as per the details shown below: i) Compensation for fatal accident under Section 163A : Rs.2,40,000.00 (3,60000X2/3) ii) Compensation payable under the Second Schedule Funeral expenses [Cl. 3(i)] : Rs. 2,000.00 Compensation payable for loss of estate[Cl.3(iii)] :Rs. 2,500.00 ----------------------- Total :Rs.2,44,500.00 ========== 7. Needless to say, the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- has been arrived at reckoning the deceased as one belonging to the age group of persons up to 15 years referred to in horizontal column No.1 of the chart/table under clause 1 of the Second Schedule. Relying on clause 6 of the Second Schedule, the deceased has been reckoned as a person who has no income prior to the accident. Therefore his annual income (he is a non earning person) has been assumed to be Rs.15,000/-. He has therefore been held to belong to the group of persons falling under the 10th vertical column dealing with persons having income above M.A.C.A No.1513/11 5 Rs.12,000/- up to Rs.18,000/-. 360 is the compensation amount prescribed in “rupees in thousands”. 1/3 of the same has been deducted as insisted by the note. No other contentions have been raised. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that only an amount of Rs.1,500/- has been awarded as cost. Proportionate cost as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011 (3) KLT 943] ought to have been awarded, contends the learned counsel. We agree. 9. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The claimant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.50,500/- (Rupees Fifty thousand and five hundred only) as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award; d) We direct that cost be paid to the claimant in the proceedings before the Tribunal for the entire amount of compensation hereby awarded as held in Jeena V. Satheesh M.A.C.A No.1513/11 6 Babu.K (supra); e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/