IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 551 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.1700/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS(PETITIONERS IN O.P(MV) ----------------------------------------------- 1. PUSHPAKUMARI KV, AGED 33 YEARS, PUSHPALAYAM VEEDU ELAMANGALAM ENATHU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNAPRIYA AGED 5 YEARS, PUSHPALAYAM VEEDU ELAMANGALAM, ENATHU P.O., ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (THE SECOND APPELLANT IS A MINOR AND IS REPRESENTED BY FIRST APPELLANT IN THE CAPACITY AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN). BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS IN O.P(MV) -------------------------------------- 1. T.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, THUNDUVILLA VEEDU, THUMPASSERI MUKKU, KARAVALOOR P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTARAKKARA. 3. DAMODHARA KURUP, NEEPUNNACKAL VEEDU, NEDUMONKAVU P.O, KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. CHELLAMMA, W/O DAMODHARA KURUP, NEERPUNNACKAL VEEDU, NEDUMONKAVU P.O., KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.551 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The claimants are the appellants. They claim compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of the deceased - husband of the 1st appellant, father of the 2nd appellant and son of respondents 3 and 4. The deceased was an Amin employed in the judicial service. He was aged 37 years on the date of the death. Death occurred on the date of the accident itself. An amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5.97 lakhs in all and directed payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondents 3 and 4. The balance amount of Rs.4.97 lakhs was awarded equally to appellants 1 and 2. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the amounts awarded are too inadequate and meager. The amounts are seen awarded under four specific heads. That is loss of dependency Rs.5.52 lakhs. Funeral expenses, transport expenses and medical expenses Rs.10,000/-, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium Rs.20,000/-, pain and suffering Rs.15,000/-. Total Rs.5.97 lakhs. M.A.C.A.No.551/07 2 3. Called upon to explain the specific grounds of challenge, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the reckoning of the multiplicand at Rs.4,313/- is totally unsatisfactory. The deceased was having a settled and stable employment and future increase in wages and promotions was a certainty. Considering the peculiar nature of employment, the reasonable future increases in earnings must have been realistically taken note of. At any rate, the salary certificate Ext.A6 issued from the court where the deceased was employed reveals that his monthly income was Rs.4,493/-. The Tribunal unjustifiably reduced the amount to Rs.4,313/- and reckoned only that as the multiplicand. Rs.180/- payable as H.R.A was unjustifiably excluded. For shelter, the appellants would have looked up to the deceased and the H.R.A paid to the deceased was to provide shelter not only for him but for the family also. In these circumstances, exclusion of Rs.180/- from the multiplicand on the ground that it is the H.R.A payable is not justified, contends the counsel. 4. We find merit in the contention. The exclusion of Rs.180/- payable as H.R.A as the multiplicand is not justified. In M.A.C.A.No.551/07 3 the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, considering the nature of the stable and settled employment of the deceased and the certainty of the future promotion and increase in the emoluments, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would have been made ideally by reckoning Rs.4,500/- as the multiplicand. Consequently, under the head loss of dependency, the appellant will be entitled for a further amount of Rs.24,000/- for loss of dependency (Rs.4,500/- x 2/3 x 12 x 16) i.e. Rs.5,76,000/- minus Rs.5,52,000/- i.e. Rs.24,000/-. 5. The learned counsel then contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding a composite amount under the heads of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Considering the age of the spouses, we are satisfied that in addition to the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded as compensation for loss of love and affection, a further amount of Rs.25,000/- is liable to be awarded as compensation for loss of consortium. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for a further amount of Rs.49,000/- as shown above along with interest as already awarded by the Tribunal on the total amount. M.A.C.A.No.551/07 4 7. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to receive a further amount of RS.49,000/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. Needless to say, interest shall be payable on the total amount (including the amount hereby directed) at the rates already directed by the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.551/07 5 M.A.C.A.No.551/07 6 R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009