IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 633 of 2003() -------------------------------- OPMV.845/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELANT IST & 2ND PETITIONER. IN O.P.(MV)NO.845/02. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.OMANA,AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.LATE SASI. 2. V.S.HANEESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.LATE SASI, VATTAMTHATTIL HOUSE, PERUMPALLY CHURCH ROAD, NARAKKALP.O. NOW RESIDING AT KIDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.MANJU R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS-3RD & 4TH PETITIONER IN OP.(MV)845/02. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OP(MV) NO.845/02. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.V.DAMODHARAN, AGED 85 YEARS, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN. 2. KAUSALYA, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.V.V.DAMODHARAN, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VATTAMTHATTIL HOUSE, PERUMPALLY CHURCH ROAD, NARAKKAL P.O. 3. V.D.VINAYAKAN, S/O.DAMODHARAN, VATTATHARA HOUSE, PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM. 4. T.R.BAIJU, S/O.ROCKY, THUNDATHIL VEEDU, PAZHAVELIKAKATH, PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, MTPC OFFICE, VETTUKATTIL BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN - 16. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ================================ M.A.C.A.No.633 of 2003 - B =============================== Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T KOSHY, J. The appellants approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal contending that husband of the 1st appellant died in a motor vehicle accident due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the 3rd respondent. Though Tribunal considered the above contention, it awarded an amount of Rs.3,99,000/- as compensation against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. The coverage of insurance by the policy issued by the 3rd respondent is admitted. The only dispute raised in this appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation. The motor accident victim is a police constable. He died after two days of the accident. The accident occurred on 19.5.1996. Even though the postmortem report shows his age as 48, Ext.A11 school certificate and Ext.A9 identity card show that the deceased was aged only 44 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has taken 15 as multiplier. We see no ground to enhance the multiplier even though it was argued that considering the M.A.C.A.No.633 of 2003 - B 2 increase in the expectancy in age as well as fluctuation in economy a higher multiplier should be fixed. The deceased is a police constable. At the time of death, his monthly income was Rs. 4,100/- as per Ext.A11 certificate. Being a Government employee, he is entitled to periodical wage revisions apart from yearly increments. It is further contended that there is likelihood of promotion and even if there is no regular promotion, there will be time bound grade promotions and if he continued in service till the time of retirement, he would have got more than three times the salary he was getting at the time of the accident and that retirement benefits would also be based on the last drawn salary etc. It is well settled that future prospects also should be taken into account while calculating the monthly income of the motor accident victim. But the future cannot be predicted with precision. However, we are of the opinion that atleast Rs.4,500/- ought to have fixed as monthly income and after deducting one third, Rs.3,000/- is taken as yearly loss of dependency. If that be so, Rs.36,000/- will be the yearly loss of dependency to the family and compensation payable will be Rs.5,40,000/-. M.A.C.A.No.633 of 2003 - B 3 The Honourable Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others (AIR 2003 SC 674) held that it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation notwithstanding the amount claimed by the dependants of the motor accident victim. The Tribunal has granted Rs.3,99,000/- for loss of dependency and family contribution. Therefore, additional compensation payable in this case will be Rs.1,80,000/- over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. The above amount should be deposited by the 3rd respondent - insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. It is contended that compensation granted under other heads, especially compensation for pain and suffering is very low. But considering the total amount, we are not enhancing the compensation under other heads. It is submitted that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation amount, has directed to disburse the amount to the claimants 1 to 4 equally; claimant No.3 is the father and claimant No.4 is the mother. There was no stay of disbursement of the amount. In view of the above M.A.C.A.No.633 of 2003 - B 4 circumstances, on deposit of the amount the appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw the entire additional compensation awarded in the appeal in equal proportion. The appeal is disposed of as above. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE bkn/-