IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 MACA.No. 541 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1430/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------- 1. P.K. SOBHANA, W/O. K. MANI, AGED 39, RESIDING AT ARUN JYOTHI, NEAR THOTTATHIL TEMPLE PADAMUGAL, KAKKANADU P.O., PERMANENTS RESIDING AT KUZHIKKATTU HOUSE, AROOTIMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. MINU. K.M., D/O. K.N. MANI, AGED 20 DO. DO. 3. THANU. K.M., D/O. K.M. MANI, AGED 18, DO. DO. 4. INDIRA V.M., SISTER OF K.N. MANI KUZHIKATTUKARA HOUSE, KADATHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM. 5. MEENAKSHI, AGED 68, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. T.B. SURESH BABU, NOW WORKING AT CHAITHANYA ENTERPRISES, `KARTHIKA', NORTH TOWN HALL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. MACA.No. 541 of 2004() 2 2. BABU. M.S., RESIDING AT MALAYEDATH HOUSE, MANAKULANGARA P.O., THRISSUR. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MUTHOOT TOWERS, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.541 OF 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated 7th April, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A 44 year old man sustained fatal injuries and died in a motor accident on 9.5.1997. His widow along with two minor children, mother and sister filed an application for compensation claiming Rs.9,00,000/=. Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2,73,500/= after finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the third respondent insurance company. Only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The date of birth of the deceased was 4.5.1952. Therefore, he just completed 45 on the date of the accident. As per second schedule, 13 is the apt multiplier. Tribunal took 10 as the multiplier taking into account the fact that he will retire at the age of 55. After retirement also a healthy man at the age of 55 can do some work and earn some amount. Apart from the above, if he has continued in the employment, he would have received almost double the amount from the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, a public sector undertaking in view of normal increments, grade promotions, periodical wage revisions etc. He also would have got pension, retiral benefits etc. on the last drawn pay. According to the MACA.541/2004 2 claimants, in view of the reduction in rate of interest and increase in life expectancy, a higher multiplier should be taken. However, we are of the opinion that at least 13 ought to have been taken as the multiplier. The salary certificate produced would show that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,191/= before the accident, but, there was a retrospective wage revision thereafter. Ext.X1 service records from K.S.R.T.C. states as follows: “The following details are submitted before the Hon'ble Tribunal on behalf of the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.Corporation. 1. Service records of } Date of entry into service Sri.K.N.Mani,Conductor } 29.11.76 as Reserve Conductor. } Promoted as II Grade Condr. } on 28.5.79. Promoted as I Grade Conductor on 2.3.87. Promoted as Selection Grade Conductor on 29.11.91. Promoted as Special Grade Conductor on 29.11.94. 2. Pay Revision details from }Pay revision implemented 1.5.97. }from 1.3.97. His pay fixed as }Rs.7170/- in the post of Special }Grade Conductor. 3. Chances of Promotion } Station Master and Inspector Grades after Conductor Post. 4. Grade promotion } No Grade promotion but ratio calculation statement } promotion as per vacancy in the post of Station Master & Inspector. MACA.541/2004 3 5. Total Pay & Allowance } 7170 + 1577 + 270 he would have drawn } (Pay) (DA) (HRA) without promotion } = Rs.9017/=” Therefore, on the date of accident his total salary was about Rs.9017/= in view of the retrospective wage revisions effected in public sector undertaking along with the State Government employees. Of course, his wife is getting a family pension of Rs.2,961/=, but, at the same time, if he continued in employment, he would have got a big sum at the time of retirement and almost double the amount. Taking all these aspects, Rs.9,000/= can be fixed as the monthly income at the time of accident. Even if Rs.3,000/= is deducted as his wife is getting family pension, balance will be Rs.6,000/=. Even if 1/3rd is deducted again for personal expenses, at least Rs.3,000/= ought to have been taken as the monthly loss of dependency and family contribution. So, compensation payable will be Rs.4,68,000/= (3000 x 12 x 13). Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,40,000/=. Therefore, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.2,28,000/= more than that was awarded by the Tribunal. Even though it is contented that compensation granted under other heads are very low, considering the total amount awarded, we are not enhancing the same. The above additional amount of Rs.2,28,000/= should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. Out of the MACA.541/2004 4 deposited amount, a consolidated amount of Rs.75,000/= should be disbursed to the fifth appellant, mother of the deceased. Out of the balance amount, 50% is allowed to be withdrawn by the first appellant and balance in equal proportion by appellants 2 and 3. The appeal is allowed in part. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks