IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 890 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OPMV.34/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. AMBIKA, ,MANOMBIKA NIVAS, PALLIMUKKU, PEYAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ARUN, -DO- 3. KIRAN, -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. M/S. AIR INDIA LIMITED, MUSEUM ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KASANI CHAMBERS, 32, R.K. MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss R. BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.890 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. Claimants are the appellants. They are, the wife, major son and minor son respectively of the deceased who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 28.12.2004 and succumbed to the same. Against a total amount of Rs.30 lakhs claimed as compensation, the Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.20,84,000/- as compensation along with interest and costs. The relevant details of the amounts awarded are given below: 1. Transportation to hospital - Rs.500/- 2. Damage to clothing - Rs.500/- 3. Funeral expenses - Rs.5000/- 4. Pain and suffering - Rs.5000/- 5. Compensation for loss of dependency - Rs.20,28,000/- (1500 x 130/100 x 12 x 13) 6. Compensation for loss of consortium - Rs.15,000/- 7. Compensation for loss of estate - Rs.15,000/- 8. Compensation for loss of love and MACA 890/11 2 affection - Rs.15,000/- ------------------- Total - Rs.20,84,000 ========== 2. The impugned award is challenged on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate. The learned counsel for the appellant was called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellants wants to mount against the impugned award. The learned counsel for the appellants raise the only ground of challenge that the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency is inadequate. 3. The deceased was employed as a Security Officer in the Air India at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport. He had 11 years more on service in Air India at the time of his death. His monthly earnings including overtime wages paid allegedly exceeded Rs.35,000/- per mensem. The Tribunal taking into account the various circumstances, as can be seen from the discussions under paragraphs 10 and 11, came to the conclusion that the monthly net income at the time of death can be reckoned only at Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal gave due allowance for income tax under the law. The Tribunal took note of the fact that MACA 890/11 3 the deceased was getting very huge amounts by way of overtime wages, but the Tribunal was not persuaded to accept the same as the overall monthly wages. The Tribunal realistically took note of the fact that a human being could not have performed overtime works at said rates all through. It had taken into account the general realities as explained in paragraphs 10 and 11. The Tribunal took the monthly income to be Rs.15,000/- only. The Tribunal take note of the possibility of improvement of economic prospects. Deep to the fact that the deceased was aged about 49 years, the Tribunal made provision for 30% increase in earnings. Despite the fact that the deceased had only 11 years of employment in future, the Tribunal took 13 as the multiplier, going by the age of the deceased and the principles as explained in Sarla Verma's case [ (2009) 6 SCC 121]. It is, thus, that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.20,28,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 130/100 x 2/3 x 13) can be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 4. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel that the monthly income reckoned as Rs.15,000/- or 30% increase given for future economic prospects of MACA 890/11 4 improvement or 13 reckoned as the multiplier are in any way incorrect. We must note that the Tribunal has not taken into account the fact that the present income would not have been available for the next 13 years even going by the case of the claimants. 5. An argument is advanced to the effect that deduction of one-third is not justified. The nuclear family consisted the deceased, his wife, his major son and the minor son. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the adoption of one-third, in the circumstances, for the personal expenses of the deceased does not call for appellate interference. 6. Death occurred almost on the same day of the occurrence and the amount of Rs.5000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering cannot in the circumstances be faulted. For loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded and a further amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of estate. We are satisfied that the amounts awarded under other heads do not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, warrant any interference. 7. To sum up, we are of the opinion that the amount of MACA 890/11 5 Rs.20,84,000/- awarded as total compensation cannot, at any rate, held to be not fair, just and reasonable to the claimants. At any rate, the quantum of compensation does not call for any appellate interference at the instance of the appellants. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed inlimine. R.BASANT, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd MACA 890/11 6