IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 682 of 2005 ---------------------- OPMV.3157/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. SMT.VALSALA, WIDOW OF RAJAN. 2. RAKEESH(MINOR), S/O.LATE RAJAN, 3. RAHUL (MINOR), S/O.LATE RAJAN. 4. ROSHAN (MINOR), S/O.LATE RAJAN. 5. SMT. KARTHAYANI, WIDOW OF KARAPPAN, (MINOR APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE REP. BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN) (ALL ARE RESIDING AT PANGIL HOUSE, ANAPARA, P.O.R.V.PURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.LEJU T.BALAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. K.K.BABU, S/O.KUNJUNNI, RESIDING AT KURIAKOTT HOUSE, AMBAKKAD P.O., PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ORISON COMPLEX, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R2 M.A.C.A.NO.682 OF 2005 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO. 682 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th August, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellants are the widow, three minor children and the mother of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the quantum, the appellants are before us. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company. In view of the fact that insurance is admitted and the Appeal relates to the quantum, we are not issuing notice to the first respondent. 3. This is a case where the deceased was 39 years of age at the time of accident. He was employed in the Military till 1998. According to the claimants, he was thereafter engaged as a driver and was earning Rs.6,000/= as monthly income. MACA.NO.682/05 2 4. The complaint in this Appeal essentially relates to the calculation of the dependency compensation. The tribunal has taken the annual income at Rs.30,000/=. This is by taking the income as a driver at Rs.2,500/= per month. A multiplier of 16 was applied and thereafter 1/3rd was de4ducted towards own expenses and a sum of Rs.3,20,000/= is arrived at. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend firstly that the tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased as a driver at Rs.2,500/=. The accident took place on 24.9.2000. Secondly, he contends that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the amount of pension the deceased was entitled to from the Army. He would point out that the deceased would have got Rs.720/= as pension. He would also contend that it is settled law that any amount received by way of family pension cannot be deducted from pension. It is his case that if the person who was involved in the accident continued to live, he would have continued to draw the pension and his death has resulted in the income being MACA.NO.682/05 3 lost and, therefore, this ought to have been considered by the tribunal while computing the income by way of dependency for the appellants. The tribunal has deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. He lastly contends that the tribunal ought to have granted higher rate of interest than six per cent. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award. 5. The first question to be considered is what is to be taken as the income. The deceased was 39 years of age. He was a qualified driver. Having regard to the date of the accident, we do not think that there is any further scope for enhancement. But, we are inclined to accept the case of the appellant that the amount of pension being received by the deceased should also have been reckoned for arriving at the income for calculating dependency compensation. We take Rs.720/= as the monthly pension which the deceased was receiving at the time of his death. Though there is reference to subsequent revisions, we have to consider the state of affairs as on the date of the death. MACA.NO.682/05 4 In view of the fact that there are four dependents, even if we exclude the mother, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (JT 2009 (6) SC 495), the deduction towards personal expenses should have been confined to 1/4th and not 1/3rd. Thus, after taking the income at Rs.3,200/= and deducting 1/4th and applying the multiplier of 16, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,60,800/=. After deducting the amount of Rs.3,20,000/= already awarded by the tribunal, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,40,800/= more. We are also inclined to accept the contention of the appellants that the tribunal should have awarded interest at a higher rate. We fix the interest at 7.5 per cent on the amount already awarded. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are allowed to realise Rs.1,40,800/= more with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the second respondent. The appellants are also allowed to realise interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the MACA.NO.682/05 5 date of realisation on the amount already awarded, from the second respondent. The enhanced compensation will be shared in the same ratio as is awarded by the tribunal. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge