IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 779 of 2001() --------------------- OP(MV) NO.822/1995 OF MACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT: ----------- THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PADMASREE, BUS STAND, NEYYATTINKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, REGIONAL OFFICE, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN SMT.R.RAJASREE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. S.SIVATHANU PILLAI, SUPRIYA BHAVAN, ASSARIVILA, EDAKKODU, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O. 2. G.UMAYA PARVATHI, SUPRIYA BHAVAN, ASSARIVILA, EDAKKODU, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM-P.O. 3. S.MOHANAN, S/O.SOMAN, CHEMMANAD MALE PUTHENVEEDU, NARUVAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. AKBAR BADUSHA, SASTHANVILA VEEDU, NEAR SASTHANVILA KULAM, EDAKKODE, PALLICHAL. 5. SALAHUDHEEN, PALLOKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.6445/2001 IN M.F.A.NO.779/2001 CLOSED. SD/-J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/-K.HEMA, JUDGE 30/01/2008 J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M.F.A.No.779 of 2001-D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy, J. A 13 year old child sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 19/05/1995 when an auto rickshaw, in which she was travelling, capsized due to the negligence of the driver of the auto rickshaw, (second respondent before the Tribunal), and she subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The appellant has issued valid policy and the policy was effective on the date of the accident. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,59,620/- and directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the amount with interest against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/-. 2. The contention raised in the appeal is that since the deceased child was only a student, no compensation ought to have been awarded for loss of dependency of family contribution. 3. The loss of a child to the parent cannot be measured in terms of money. When the child attains majority, what would be the support given to the family also cannot be predicted with precision. In the normal circumstances we can expect support of the child. M.F.A.No.779/2001 -: 2 :- Therefore, compensation can be calculated only on a notional basis. Apex Court in a large number of cases held that even though 2nd schedule is framed for calculating compensation under Section 163 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that can be adopted as a guideline for calculation of compensation in claims of Section 166 also. Even though there is a view that since in Section 163(A) applications, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle need not be proved but, in Section 166 that has also to be proved; compensation under Section 166 always should be higher than the compensation under Section 163(A). But, the Tribunal has calculated compensation taking guidelines from the 2nd schedule. Notional income of a child fixed under 2nd schedule is Rs.15,000/- per year for a child below 16 years. Even taking the age of the mother also, the multiplier is 15, and the Tribunal has calculated Rs.1,50,000 as compensation for loss of family contribution to the family. We see no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal stands dismissed. (J.B.KOSHY, J UDGE) (K.HEMA, J UDGE ms M.F.A.No.779/2001 -: 3 :- J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M.F.A.No.779 of 2001 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J U D G M E N T 30th January, 2008