Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.59 seconds)G.Sumathy vs K.Anbazhagan on 13 July, 2018
7.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
deceased in MCOP.No.190 of 2007 was aged 9 years, studying in V
standard at M/s.G.K.Shetty Hindu Vidyalaya, Adambakkam. Taking note
http://www.judis.nic.in
of age of the deceased Mukilan on the date of accident, the Tribunal
5
ought to have awarded appropriate amount as compensation, but what
was awarded is meager and not in consonance with the decision of this
Court rendered in the case of G.Sumathy Vs. K.Anbazhagan reported
in 2018 (2) TN MAC 238. In the saiid decision, this Court, following
the decision of the Honourable Apex Court concluded that the notional
income of the minor boy aged 6 years shall be fixed at Rs.40,000/- per
annum. Further, in the said Judgment, by applying multiplier 16, this
Court enhanced the total amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.7,20,000/-. But in the present case,
the Tribunal without taking note of the above decision rendered by this
Court, has awarded only a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-
which is not proper.
1