IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 1721 of 2004 -------------------------------------- O.P.(MV)1350/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS / APPELLANTS: 1. THRESSIAMMA ANTONY, M/O.DECEASED VARGHESE, MADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL P.O., ELOOR. 2. MERCY VARGHESE, W/O.DECEASED M.A.VARGHESE, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SANKARANKUZHI LANE, MASJID ROAD, ALUVA. 3. JOSEPH CRUYEFF, S/O.DECEASED M.A.VARGHESE, (MINOR) REP. BY 2ND APPELLANT, HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AS NEXT FRIEND, DO. DO. 4. ANTONY CRIZ, S/O.DECEASED M.A.VARGHESE, (MINOR) REP. BY 2ND APPELLANT, HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AS NEXT FRIEND DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.AYPE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. V.K.BINDU, D/O.KUMARAN, VELIYATHU VEEDU, EDAYAPPURAM, ALUVA P.O. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, K.A.P. COMMERCIAL CENTRE, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.J.MATHAPPAN FOR R2 SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1721 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. When this case is taken up for consideration, we are informed that appellant No.1, the mother, is no more. However, learned counsel submits that the legal representatives of appellant No.1 do not intend to come on record and claim any share in the compensation. 2. The mother, wife and children of deceased M.A.Varghese, who was working as Clerk-Cum-Cashier at the Manjummel branch of the Union Bank of India have preferred this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants awarded a sum of Rs.9,27,520/- with 9% interest towards compensation. 3. It is contended by the appellants that the Tribunal ought to have kept in view the future career prospects of the deceased while computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It is further contended that the future promotions, pay hike etc. also ought to have been taken note of by the Tribunal while fixing the quantum. 4. It has come out in evidence that the deceased was aged 41 at the time of the accident. Under normal circumstances he might have continued in service till 2015. At the time of his death, the deceased had been drawing a basic pay of Rs.4520/-, a Dearness Allowance of Rs.1850/- M.A.C.A.No.1721 OF 2004 :: 2 :: HRA of Rs.474.60, City Compensatory Allowance of Rs.150/- etc. The Tribunal has referred to the earlier bipartite settlement entered into between the management and the employees and on the basis of the anticipated hike in his emoluments for the remaining period of his service reckoned his total earnings at Rs.51,27,400/-. The Tribunal also referred to the evidence of Pws.2 and 3, the officials of the Bank. The Tribunal further noticed that the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs.7095/- . The Tribunal had also kept in view the risk factors and imponderables in life. It was in the above circumstances that the Tribunal had fixed his monthly earning at Rs.7096/- and deducted 1/3rd therefrom and calculated the total compensation under the head of loss of dependency at Rs.8,51,519/- applying a multiplier of 15. In addition to the above, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for loss of estate, as against a claim of Rs.50,000/-. As against loss of consortium, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.15,000/-. For pain and sufferings, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- as against a claim of Rs.25,000/-. It is also seen that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation, as against a claim of Rs.25,000/-. Under the head of loss of love and affection, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,0000/- as against a claim of Rs.One lakh. 5. It may at once be noticed that the deceased left behind a widow aged 37 and two minor children aged 7 and 5 respectively. It came out M.A.C.A.No.1721 OF 2004 :: 3 :: from the evidence adduced by the appellants that the appellant had more than 18 years of service left ahead of him. The testimony of Pw.2 further indicated that he was likely to have been promoted. In our view, the monthly earning of the deceased taken as Rs.7096/- is grossly inadequate. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, interest of justice will be met if we take the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency at Rs.8500/-. The compensation payable under this head shall be re-computed accordingly (8500 X 12 X 2/3 X 15 = 10,20,000/-). The award is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE Sd/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes // True copy // P.A. to Judge