High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 03 KAR CK 0129

Bibi Jan vs A.D. Balaramaiah. Father''s Name Not Known and The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 15 March 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Govindarajulu, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
MFA No. 2357 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 384 words

K. Govindarajulu, J.—The claimant in MVC 1416/2006 on the file of MACT, Gubbi is the Appellant.

2.

Facts necessary for the consideration of the present appeal are as under:

It is the claim of the claimant that on 29.10.2006 at 10.30 am she, her uncle Khasim were on the road with Mubarak, her child. Then the driver of

the jeep bearing registration No. KA-06.M. 1032 has driven the vehicle rashly, negligently and dashed against Mubarak. On account of it

Mubarak aged about 8 years has succumbed to the injuries. She claims compensation of Rs. 10.00.000/-.

3.

Objections are filed, deny the claim, pleaded for the proof of the accident, contend that the claim is exaggerated.

4.

Learned member of the Tribunal has recorded evidence.P Ws 1 and 2 are examined, Exs. P1 to P7 are marked. A sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- is

awarded.

5.

Learned advocate for the Appellant submits that the age of the injured is 8 years, the method adopted by the learned member of the Tribunal is

not correct as atleast on the notional income for a period of 18 years at 10,000/- would workout to Rs. 1,80,000/-. So pray for enhancing the

compensation.

6.

Learned advocate for the insurance company supports contending that there is no earning as such. So question of notional income do not arise

and the approach of the learned member of the Tribunal is proper.

7.

Carefully considered the material submissions.

8.

Notional income concept has come into existence to evaluate a method to arrive at a possible figure, while considering non pecuniary

compensation, the one referred to in RD Hatangadir Pest Control (Indian) ltd. 1995 ACJ 366. Certain guess work will assist the Court while

assessing compensation in this area. In the facts of the case the death is of a 8 years old boy Mubarak. So basing of notional income is attracted.

So the submission of the learned advocate for the Appellant claimant is accepted. In the place of Rs. 1,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal the

amount is enhanced to Rs. 1,80,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- towards the funeral expenses. So the claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of

Rs. 36,000/-. Additional compensation of Rs. 36,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till deposit.

Appeal is allowed accordingly.