IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 479 of 2002(E) ---------------------- OPMV.390/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT NO.3 -------------------------- ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE,ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND OTHER RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. BINDHU ROY W/O.LATE S.ROY,ARATHITHARAYIL HOUSE,KARAMVELI P.O.,MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE 2. MINOR KINARA ROY REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND MOTHER BINDHU ROY,ARATHITHARAYIL HOUSE,KARAMVELI P.O.,MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE. 3. V.SOMAN,VALINJAPARAMBIL,KOZHENCHERRY P.O 4. SIVARAJAN S/O.KARTHIYANI, MALAYILVADAKETHIL,MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R1 & R2 SRI.R.VINOD SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 246 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.M.P. No.2687/2002 in M.F.A. No. 479/2002 Dismissed. Sd/-J.B. Koshy, Judge. 3rd March,2008 Sd/-K. Hema, Judge. mn. J.B. Koshy & K. Hema, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A.No. 479/2002 & M.A.C.A.No. 246/2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of Marh, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J. Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) No.390/97 is challenged by the Insurance Company and the claimants in these appeals. 2. According to the Insurance Company, the amount awarded is very high. Factum of the accident, death due to injuries suffered in the accident, valid insurance coverage etc. are not denied. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. According to the Insurance Company, without any valid materials, the Tribunal fixed Rs.9,000/- as monthly income and Rs.6,000/- taken as the monthly loss of contribution to the family. It is also submitted that no evidence was adduced regarding the income which he was remitting to India. Claimants filed the application contending that the quantum of compensation is very low. 3. It has come out in evidence that the deceased was employed in Abudabi as a Draftsman. Ext.A1 shows that he was an I.T.I. Certificate holder. He obtained National Trade Certificate also. Ext.A5 is an offer of employment addressed to the deceased from National Petroleum Construction Company, U.A.E. Ext.A5 also shows that his monthly salary was 6,600 Dirhams, which is equivalent to Rs.55,000/-. MFA 479/02 & con. -2- His wife was also living in Abudabi. That shows that he had a good employment. He was enjoying in a family and having three year old child also. Even though Ext.A5 shows his monthly income equivalent to Rs.55,000/-, the Tribunal fixed only Rs.9,000/- as the monthly income. The Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc., Etc. V. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. Etc., Etc. , JT 2002 (5) SC 74, held that exchange rate on the date of accident shall be taken for the calculation of compensation in cases where the victims are employed abroad. It is true that he was employed abroad and he was living there with his wife and child. He was a technically qualified person and certificate produced shows that his monthly income is above Rs.50,000/-.Therefore, Rs.9,000/- fixed as monthly income is grossly inadequate. 4. According to the claimants, only because of his high income his family was allowed to live in Abudabi. At paragraph 14 the Tribunal has also noticed that he was a Draftsman(Civil) employed abroad. Even though it is true that employment in Gulf is not guaranteed, he is a technically qualified person and vagaries of life cannot be predicted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the income fixed by the tribunal is very low. The Tribunal ought to have fixed at least Rs.20,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased and in view of the higher expenses incurred abroad, Rs.10,000/- can be deducted and Rs.10,000/- taken as monthly contribution to the family. According to the claimants, only 10 was taken as the multiplier. He was aged 34 years. Ext.A3 S.S.L.C. MFA 479/02 & con. -3- Book shows his age. As per Second Schedule, 17 is the multiplier. However, the Supreme Court in the case cited above held that when multiplicand is higher, exact multiplier in the Second Schedule need not be taken into account. Hence, 10 multiplier taken by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and hence no interference is necessary. If that be so, compensation for loss of dependency will be Rs.10,00,000/- The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.7,20,000/- Therefore, the claimants will be entitled additional amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. We find compensation granted under other heads are just and reasonable. 5. In the above circumstances, the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal should deposit Rs.2,80,000/- over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal with 7.5 % interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the additional amount, 1/4th of the amount deposited shall be disbursed to the 1st appellant. Balance should be deposited in the name of the 2nd appellant daughter enabling her to withdraw the amount when she attains the age of 21 or at the time of marriage, which ever is earlier. 6. Hence, M.F.A. No.479/2002 is dismissed and M.A.C.A. No.246/2005 is allowed in part. J.B. Koshy, Judge. K. Hema, Judge. mn. MFA 479/02 & con. -4-