IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 895 of 2004(C) ---------------------- OPMV.932/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: ------------------------------------- 1. A.VASANTHAKUMARI, W/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 44 YEARS, AYYIPUZHA MADOM, CHITHRA NIVAS, EZHILODE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, DESOM. 2. N.V.CHITHRA, D/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 14 YEARS, AYYIPUZHA MADOM, CHITHRA NIVAS, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, DESOM. 3. K.M.GOWRI, D/O. PARVATHI AMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, KARTHIKA, P.O. EZHIKODE, (VIA) KUNHIMANGALAM. 4. K.M.SAVITHRI, D/O. PARVATHI AMMA, AGED 58 YARS, P.O. NAREEKAMVALLI, (VIA) MANDOOR. 5. K.M.RAMDAS, S/O. PARVATHI AMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, PARVATHI NIVAS, P.O. NAREEKAMVALLI. (VIA) MANDOOR 6. K.M.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. PARVATHI AMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, AISWARYA, P.O. EZHILODE, (VIA) KUNHIMANGALAM. 7. K.M.SASIDHARAN, S/O. PARVATHI AMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, AISWARYA, P.O. EZHILODE, (VIA) KUNHIMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.C.BINEESH SRI. P. K. VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. T.P.ABDULLA, K.N.HOUSE, P.O. KUNHIMANGALAM, KANNUR. M.A.C.A NO: 895 OF 2004. 2. K.N.SHAFY, S/O. ABDULLA, K.N.HOUSE, P.O. KUNHIMANGALAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 895 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th Day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. The appellants are the claimants in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They are wife, children and mother of the deceased, besides the siblings of the deceased. The siblings were arrayed as the supplementary petitioners in the O.P. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for third respondent, Insurance Company. The appellants claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and was awarded an amount of Rs.9,04,800/- towards dependency compensation. Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, M.A.C.A . NO: 895 OF 2004 :2: Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral rites and Rs.600/- for damages to clothings. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased was working as a Sub Engineer in Kerala State Electricity Board. He relied on Ext.A6 and A9 certificates, according to which the Tribunal has found that the total pay and allowances amounts to Rs.8,708/-, out of which 1/3 is to be deducted. An amount of Rs.5,806/- is found to be 2/3, which is rounded of to Rs.5,800/- Applying the multiplier of 13, for calculation of dependency compensation, the amount arrived is Rs.9,04,800/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the amount awarded is on the lower side, where as the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award. 5. We find in the decision of Apex Court, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport M.A.C.A . NO: 895 OF 2004 :3: Corporation and another), it is held as follows: “In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ(SC), this court increased the income by nearly 100 per cent, in Sarla Dixit, 1996 ACJ 581(SC), the income was increased only by 50 per cent and in Arati Bezbaruah, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC), the income was increased by a mere 7 per cent. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ' actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax'). The addition should be only 30 per cent. If the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different M.A.C.A . NO: 895 OF 2004 :4: methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.) the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” 6. The deceased was aged 46 at the time of the accident. Therefore, he falls in the age group of 45-50. In such circumstances, we would be justified, if we take 13 as the multiplier. Learned counsel for Insurance Company pointed out two issues. Firstly, it was pointed out that the deceased had 9 years of service more. Secondly, when the multiplicand is on the higher side, the multiplier should be appropriately taken. If we take the income at Rs.11,300/-, by making an addition of 30% of Rs.8,708/- the income after deduction would be Rs.7,534/-. If we take 11 as the multiplier, the amount would be Rs.9,94,000/-. We feel that in the interest justice, the dependency compensation can be fixed at M.A.C.A . NO: 895 OF 2004 :5: Rs.10,00,000/-. We would modify the award of interest to 7.5% in place of 6%, awarded by the Tribunal and the amount already awarded by the Tribunal will also bear at 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The other claims of the appellant are rejected. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.95,200/- along with an interest of 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the third respondent. The appellant will be also entitled to receive the interest amount at 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of relisation on the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/