MINI Vs. SELVAM,S/O.MUTHURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Jomit died on 20.12.2004 consequent to a road traffic accident, when he was travelling in an autorickshaw from Kothamangalam to Cheruvattor, which was driven by the 4th respondent. The autorickshaw is said to have hit the back of a lorry parked on the southern side of the road, due to the negligence of the autorickshaw driver. The minor, who suffered injuries in the accident, was admitted to the hospital on the date of accident [25.11.2004] and died later, after about 25 days, on 20.12.2004. The mother of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal and asserted in the application that her son was aged 16 at the time of accident and death. The mother, however, in the box deposed that her son was actually 14. The Tribunal considering the age of the mother and also the time when she asserted to have commenced cohabitation with the father of the child, found that the age of the child at the time of death was 14. Since there is no appeal by the Insurance Company, this Court does not find any reason to adopt a different age than that found by the Tribunal.

(2.) The claim is one filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity "the Act"] and one has to go by the Second Schedule of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submits that in adopting the income of the child, the decision in Kishan Gopal & Another v. Lala & Others [(2014) 1 SCC 244] could be relied on. Therein, a 10 year child travelling in a trolley of the tractor died by reason of the injuries suffered in an accident. An yearly income of Rs.30,000/- was adopted in the said accident, which occurred in 1992. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company however relies on 2004 (1) KLT 893 [Jacob Vs. Mohammed] to argue that when the claim is under Section 163A , there can be no claim under any other head other than that in the Second Schedule. In adopting the income based on Kishan Gopal, this Court is not departing from Second Schedule but only adopting the monthly income based on which the compensation for loss of dependency can be determined under the Second Schedule.

(3.) In such circumstances, looking at the Second Schedule; adopting an annual income of Rs.30,000/- for a minor child and considering his age to be below 15 years, the compensation payable would be Rs.7,20,000/-; which has to be reduced by 1/3rd for personal expenses, which will be Rs.4,80,000/-. To this, the compensation awarded for funeral expenses and loss of estate, respectively at Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/-, shall be added. The Tribunal has granted a medical expense of Rs.15,000/-, which is also retained.