SUNIL Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN K. M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st and 2nd appellants are the parents and the 3rd appellant the sister of minor Adith, who died in a motor accident on 11/4/2015. The accident occurred at about 6:25 am when the car driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit Adith while he was walking by the side of the Kodunganllur- Irinjalakuda public road. As against a claim for Rs.20.00 lakhs raised by the appellants, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,90,000.00 as compensation. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal committed gross illegality in granting only a meagre amount of Rs.6.00 Lakhs as compensation for loss of dependency. The mistake occurred in fixing only Rs.5000.00 as the monthly income of the deceased, in an unscientific manner, without taking into account the depreciation in rupee value and the effect of inflation. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on this Court's decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Assainar [2019 (4) KLT 39]. It is pointed out that in Assainar (supra), this Court has emphasised the importance of accounting for the future prospects of the deceased, especially in the case of minors who had potential for higher future earnings. It is then contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more amount towards pain and suffering and went wrong in refusing compensation for loss of consortium.

(3.) Learned counsel for the insurance company relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto and Others [(2023) 1 SCC 204] and the judgment of this Court in Vinod v. Suresh Kumar [2023 KHC 191], to contend that the deceased child being aged only 13 years, the annual income should have been taken as Rs.30,000.00, but the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income as Rs.5,000.00, which works out to Rs.60,000.00 per annum. As such, the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency is actually excessive.