Skip to content


S. Velu Pillal and ors. Vs. Kochappi Sreenivasan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1985)ACC415
AppellantS. Velu Pillal and ors.
RespondentKochappi Sreenivasan and ors.
Cases Referred(C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunjikuttan Nair
Excerpt:
- - the evidence disclosed that rejana was an intelligent and promising girl and the appellants had great hopes about her future, and had plans to bring her up well, giving the best possible education......appeal is under section 110(c) of the motor vehicles act 1939 and rule 32 of the kerala accidents claims tribunal rules, 1977, and is directed against the judgment of the motor accidents claims tribunal, trivandrum dated 24-11-1978 in o.p. no. 23 of 1977. the appellants are the parents of one rejana, a five year old promising girl who happened to be run over by car klq 4569, driven by the first respondent.2. exts. a4 and a5, wound certificate and postmortem certificate, and also the independent evidence of the occurrence witnesses pws 2 and 3, would go to show that the death of rejana was due to accident involving klq 4569. it is in evidence that the car was proceeding along the wrong side, and was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. the tribunal having found.....
Judgment:

K. Bhaskaran, C.J.

1. This appeal is Under Section 110(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and Rule 32 of the Kerala Accidents claims Tribunal Rules, 1977, and is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Trivandrum dated 24-11-1978 in O.P. No. 23 of 1977. The appellants are the parents of one Rejana, a five year old promising girl who happened to be run over by Car KLQ 4569, driven by the first respondent.

2. Exts. A4 and A5, wound certificate and postmortem certificate, and also the independent evidence of the occurrence witnesses PWs 2 and 3, would go to show that the death of Rejana was due to accident involving KLQ 4569. It is in evidence that the car was proceeding along the wrong side, and was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal having found that the death was due to accident involving KLQ 4569, due to the rash and negligent act by the first respondent proceeded to fix the compensation in the light of the evidence of PW 1, the first appellant, the father of the deceased Rejana.The evidence disclosed that Rejana was an intelligent and promising girl and the appellants had great hopes about her future, and had plans to bring her up well, giving the best possible education. They thought reasonably that Rejana would be a source of support to the family in course of time; and that expectations had been belied by the cruel death resulting from the accident. As against a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-claimsed by the appellants, the Tribunal granted only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation. In the appeal the contention raised is that though the appellants had been expecting a reasonable compensation Rs. 50,000/- taking all the facts and circumstances into account a sum of Rs. 15,000/-at least should have been given to the appellants by way of damages. No doubt, the child Rejana was not, at the time of her death, in a position to contribute to the income of the appellant's family; it is not, however, necessary that to sustain a claims for compensation by the parents of the deceased child to prove that they had been deprived of a source of income then and there; it would be ' quite sufficient if they succeed in establishing that in the death of the child they had lost a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage.

3. In the light of this dictum Laid down by the Supreme Court in 1970 ACJ 110 (C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunjikuttan Nair) we would fix the damages payable to the appellants at Rs. 10,000/-, that is we grant an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of Rs. 5,000/- also the appellants would be entitled to interest at 5% per annum from the date of the application. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Parties will bear their respective costs in this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //