IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1391 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.323/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4: ------------------------------------ 1. MARIAMMA POULOSE, W/O.POULOSE, KARUKAPPILLIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 2. SAJI PAUL, S/O.POULOSE, DO. DO. 3. RAJI PAUL, S/O.POULOSE, DO. DO. 4. LIJI JOSEPH, D/O.POULOSE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): RSPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. K.M.SALIM, KEYALOM HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O. PERUMABVOOR. 2. V.C.BABU, S/O.V.K.CHACKO, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU, KOLENCHERRY. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., A.R.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1391 of 2004 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim, J. 1. The wife and children of a person died in a motor vehicle accident, who were claimants No.1 to 4 before the Tribunal are in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. Claimants No.5 and 6 before the Tribunal were the parents of the deceased. They died during pendency of the claim petition. The accident occurred on 5.11.1997 when an Autorikshaw knocked down the deceased on a public road. The Tribunal found that the driver of the Autorikshaw was negligent in causing the accident and accordingly held that the 3rd respondent insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 2. The deceased at the time of the accident was working as Senior Manager (Works), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore. He was left with service for a period of 4 years, 4 months and 15 days. Considering his age the Tribunal fixed multiplier of 8 but calculated dependency based on his salary for the leftover period of service. For the balance period of 3 years, 7 months and 15 days only a notional income at Rs.2000/- was MACA.1391/04 2 adopted. The loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.5,94,514/- and a total compensation of Rs.6,76,514/- was awarded. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the standing counsel for 3rd respondent/insurance company. On behalf of the appellants it is vehemently contended that the monthly income adopted for the purpose of computing loss of dependency was not correct, based on the documentary evidence adduced with respect to employment and salary of the deceased. It was pointed out that as per Ext.A7 salary certificate the salary of the deceased as on 7.11.1997 was Rs.12,206.20/- including Basic pay, DA, CCA and incentive bonus. Apart from that he was entitled for allotment of Company Quarters, conveyance expenditure, free medical facilities, LTC, Ex-gratia and such other perks. But in Ext.A7 it is further indicated that his salary was due for revision with effect from 1.1.1997. Ext.X1 is the pay fixation form with respect to the deceased which showed that his effective grade of basic pay with effect from 1.1.1997 was Rs.14,850/- and further he was entitled to get DA and all other benefits as stated above based on the re-fixed basic pay. But the Tribunal adopted monthly earning of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and deducting Rs.500/- towards income tax payment the salary for the purpose of computation is taken as MACA.1391/04 3 Rs.14,500/- only. The loss of dependency was calculated after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the basic pay of Rs.14,850/- which came into effect from 1.1.1997 will carry DA at more than Rs.5000/- per month along with other benefits like CCA, incentive bonus, etc: and perks like conveyance expenses, free medical facilities, LTC, allotment of quarters, Ex-gratia bonus etc. It is also contended that within the leftover period of 4 years 4 months and 15 days there would have been a fair change of his salary being increased further. Hence the contention is that the amount of Rs.14,500/- fixed as monthly income for computation of loss of dependency is highly unrealistic and too inadequate. It is also contended that the notional income @ Rs.2,000/- adopted for computing loss of dependency for the post retirement period is also unrealistic and inadequate. Hence the amounts need drastic revision, is the contention. 3. Considering the fact that there is evidence regarding increase of the basic pay to Rs.14,850/- we are persuaded to accept the contention of the appellants. Taking note of all other monetary and non monetary benefits we are persuaded to re-fix the net monthly income for the purpose of computation of MACA.1391/04 4 dependency at Rs.20,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses the loss of dependency for the period of 4 years 4 months and 15 days need be re-fixed at Rs.7,00,000/-. We are not inclined to re-fix the notional income for the computation of dependency for post retirement period. Therefore calculated on the basis of Rs.2000/-, the loss of income for a period of 3 years, 7 months and 15 days will work out to Rs.58,000/-. This will entitle the appellants to re-fixation of the total amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency as Rs.7,58,000/-, entitling the appellants for a total enhancement of compensation by Rs.1,63,486/- (Rs.7,58,000 - Rs.5,94,514). Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation of Rs.6,76,514/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs.1,63,486/- which will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. The 3rd respondent/insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb