MACA.No. 1782 of 2008 (A)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/22ND SRAVANA, 1935** ## **MACA.No. 1782 of 2008 (A)** **-------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2156/2004 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 15-02-2008** **APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP (MV):-2156/04:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. DR.P.V. HAREESHKUMAR,** - **S/O P.VISWANATHAN AGED 43, GEETHAM, KOTHAKULANGARA ANGAMALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. BEENA HAREESH, S/O DR. P.V. HAREESHKUMAR DO.....** ## **3. MEERA HAREESH, D/O DR. P.V. HAREESHKUMAR** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA)** **RESPONDENT(S)/R3 IN O.P.(M.V). NO.2156/04:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------** **UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JOY'S BUILDING, M.G. ROAD COCHIN 682 035** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ. ================== M.A.C.A.No. 1782 of 2008 **==> picture [198 x 4] intentionally omitted <==** Dated this the 13[th] day of August, 2013 J U D G M E N T ## K.Ramakrishnan, J.: The parents and minor sister of deceased Sarath Hareesh, a minor aged 15 years, who are the petitioners in O.P.(M.V).No. 2156/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, are the appellants herein. The appellants filed the application for compensation for the death of the minor son of appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of appellant No.3, who died in a motor accident, on account of the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle driven and owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P.(M.V). and insured with the respondent herein. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the vehicle and awarded a total compensation of ` 1,95,750/- on various heads as follows: ||Head of claim|Amount<br>awarded<br>`|Amount<br>awarded<br>`|Amount<br>awarded<br>`|Amount<br>awarded<br>`| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency||160,000.00||| |2|Transportation expenses|||2,500.00|| |3|Damage to clothings|||250.00|| |4|Pain and sufferings|||10,000.00|| |5|Loss of love and affection|||20,000.00|| ||||||| |6|Funeral expenses||||3,000.00| ||Total||195,750.00||| M.A.C.A.1782/08 - : 2 :- Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have come before this Court with this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the insurance company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though it is difficult to fix the income of minor children, the future prospects of the minor children has to be taken note of for the purpose fixing the monthly income for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Further, the the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision reported in **R.K.Malik v. Kiran Pal** , 2009 ACJ 1924, in support of this contention. Further, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the amount awarded under the heads, love and affection, funeral expenses are also less. No amount was awarded under the head, loss of estate. So according to him, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation on all the heads. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in the case of non-earning minor children, only a notional income can be taken. The M.A.C.A.1782/08 - : 3 :- Tribunal was perfectly justified in taking the notional income as ` 15,000/- per annum for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Further, the deceased is aged less than 15 years and as per the decision in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation** , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the multiplier ought to have taken as 15. But the Tribunal has taken 16 as the multiplier. The over all compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court is the contention of the counsel. 5. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties. 6. It is quite unfortunate that a bright student of 15 years studying in 10[th] standard had lost his life in the gruesome accident, thereby causing loss to parents and his minor sister. It is well settled law that in the case of minors, it is very difficult to fix the monthly income for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency. But in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants it has been observed that for the purpose of fixing the income of the deceased in such cases, the future prospects of the deceased also has to be taken note of considering his/her educational brilliance and other academic M.A.C.A.1782/08 - : 4 :- prospects. It is seen from the records that the parents of the deceased are well educated and well employed. Further, the documents produced show that the deceased had a brilliant academic career during his school days. He has even got rank in the scholarship examination conducted. So all these things would go to show that he was having better brilliant future prospects, if he had lived long. But for the accident, those prospects have been lost to the parents. Taking all these aspects, the notional income of ` 15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side and we enhance the same to ` 24,000/-. In view of the decision in **Sarla Verma's** case (supra), the multiplier to be applied in the case of age group less than 15 years is 15 and not 16 as taken by the Tribunal. So considering these inputs, if the compensation is recalculated under the head, loss of dependency, the appellants will be entitled to get a compensation of ` 1,80,000/- (` 2000 x 12 x 15x ½) instead of ` 1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is seen from the records that the deceased is the only son of his parents and other being female child. So loss of male child would cause greater impact on the life of the parents at their old age. They have lost the love and affection and support of their son. Minor sister also lost love M.A.C.A.1782/08 - : 5 :- and affection of her beloved brother. Considering these aspects, we are awarding ` 5,000/- more under the head, loss of love and affection, over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. No amount was awarded under the head, loss of estate. So we award ` 5,000/- under that head. We enhance the expenses for funeral expenses by ` 2,000/- more. On all other heads, the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In all, the appellants will be entitled to get additional compensation of ` 32,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which the respondent-insurance company is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of petition till payment. Two months' time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount as well. With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. To Judge. M.A.C.A.1782/08 - : 6 :- This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in L.A.R.No. 164/2006. Certain properties belonging to the respondent were acquired by the State as per a notification dated 6.1.2003 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquisition officer fixed land value at the rate of ` 11,712/- per are. On reference, the Sub Court enhanced the same to M.A.C.A.1782/08 - : 7 :- ` 1,50,000/- per are. Aggrieved by the land value fixed by the reference court, the State has filed this appeal.