ABDULLA Vs. ABDULKHADER KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANTS are the appellants. They are parents aged 38 years and 39 years of a minor child aged 5 years who suffered injuries and succumbed to such injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 09/08/2006. The parents claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal by the impugned award assessed the total loss suffered by the claimants at(frm) Rs. 1,20,000/- as per the details shown below: 1. Transport to hospital and funeral expenses - Rs.5000/- 2.Compensation for pain and suffering - Rs.5000/- 3.mpensation for loss of dependency - Rs.100000/-(global amount fixed) 4. Compensation for loss of love and affection - Rs. 10000/- Total - Rs. 1,20,000/- After so fixing the total loss at Rs. 1,20,000/-, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the responsibility for the accident. It was held that the minor child aged about 5 years was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 20%. The Tribunal ultimately directed that the claimants/appellants are entitled to only an amount of Rs.96,000/- being 80% of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The said amount was directed to be paid with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of realisation.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contends that the award is not legally sustainable. It is first of all contended that the minor could not have been held to be guilty of contributory negligence at all. Further, it is contended that the quantification of the loss is unscientific and unreasonable. Thirdly, it is contended that at any rate, the quantum of compensation awarded could not fall below the minimum amount of compensation that would be payable under Section 163A of the MV Act. THE learned counsel finally contends that interest awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum is totally inadequate and insufficient.

(3.) WE now come to the quantum of compensation that would be payable under Section 163A of the MV Act in the case of death of a non-earning minor aged 5 years like the deceased child of the claimants in this case. Under clause 6 of the Second Schedule the child who had not started earning can safely be assumed to be earn a notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. That inference appears to be perfectly sound and reasonable in the light of the specific mandate of clause 6. The child may not have been earning but for the purpose of computation of compensation under Section 163A, Rs. 15,000/- can safely be assumed to be the annual income of the minor child.