P.S. Kothandani and Others vs V.N.S. Pothi Naikar and Others

K.S. Venkataraman, J.—This is an appeal by the parents of an eight-year old girl who was knocked down by a Fiat car belonging to the

first Respondent Pothi Naicker, driven by the second Respondent Moideen Pichai and insured with the third Respondent, Pioneer Fire and

General Insurance Co. The accident occurred on 20th February, 1968 about 4-45 P.M. They mads a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Ramanathapuram for Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the Fiat car and that the

parents were entitled to compensation. He fixed the compensation at Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by that, the parents have filed this appeal claiming Rs.

10,000. It may be mentioned that the owner of the car and the Insurance company filed an appeal V.N.S. Pothi Naicker v. P.S. Kothandan

C.M.A. No. 93 of 1970, for reduction of the quantum of compensation and that appeal was dismissed on 21st April, 1971 by Ganesan, J.

The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the Fiat car cannot be questioned and has not been seriously

questioned. The facts as stated by the Tribunal are that the road there runs north to south, that the Fiat car was coming from north, that the girl was

passing from west to east, that the width of the road there was 26'' (18'' wide cement portion with mud portions 4'' wide on either side) and that,

when the girl had crossed the cement portion and was going on the mud portion in the east, the car struck her. The Tribunal discussed the evidence

and there can be no doubt that it was because the driver was driving the vehicle fast and was not keeping a proper lookout particularly at that

place of traffic, the accident occurred. Hence the parents are certainly entitled to compensation.

On the quantum of compensation, the evidence of the parents is that they had three daughters and no son. The unfortunate victim-girl was the

second. She was the most active and intelligent girl and therefore they wanted to educate her and place her in a good position to make the family

prosperous.

The Tribunal referred to three cases. In Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Gurcharan Singh and Others, for the death of a

child aged about 1 1/2 years, the father was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000. In the second case Concord of India Insurance Co. v. L.J.

Machadd 1966 A.C.J. 321, where a boy of 8 years old who was studying was killed, the parents were awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000. In the third

case Shiv Prasad Gupta Agarwala Vs. S.M. Sabir Zaidi, , where a young man who was studying in the Intermediate class and was proposing to

join the medical profession and belonging to a well-to-do family, was killed in the motor accident, the Plaintiff was given a compensation of Rs.

12,000. After referring to these cases, the Tribunal observed:

In the case now before me, the death was of a child aged about 8 years who was just studying in the IV Standard and who belonged to an

ordinary family. Taking that circumstance into consideration, I find that in this case the Petitioners would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.

5,000.

It has been pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a recent case C.K. Subramania Iyer and Others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair

and Others, that the assessment of compensation cannot be precise and that the appellate Court should be slow in disturbing the finding reached by

the Courts below if they have taken all the relevant facts into consideration. Applying this criterion, though it seems to me that the Tribunal might

have awarded somewhat more as compensation, it cannot be said that the award of Rs. 5,000 is so low as to justify interference in appeal. In this

view, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.