IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1809 of 2005() ----------------------- (O.P.(MV) NO.235/2002 OF MACT, KOTTAYAM.) APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NAGERCOIL, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. KATHREENAMMA @ KUNJAMMA, W/O.LATE THOMAS, MUNDAKATHU HOUSE, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. JOMON CHACKO, S/O.LATE THOMAS DO.DO. 3. JOJIMON CHACKO, S/O.LATE THOMAS DO.DO. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON 28/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1809 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of compensation to the claimants for the death of husband of first claimant who was the father of other claimants. Senior counsel Sri.Mathews Jacob appearing for the appellant raised two points. One is with regard to the incorrect deduction of one fourth towards personal expenses for the purpose of determining loss of dependency. We agree with the counsel for the appellant that the deduction for personal expenses should have been at one third according to Second Schedule as against one fourth applied by the MACT. The next ground raised is the wrong multiplier applied because the deceased was 55 years of age and as against the applicable multiplier which is 8, MACT applied 13 for awarding compensation. Even though we agree with the appellant on this point also, we feel modification of the compensation awarded is not called for, for the reason that income estimated by the MACT for the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month is too low because admittedly the deceased was a cook in an Indian Coffee House 2 where daily wage earned by him was Rs.140/-. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that a daily wage employee cannot claim steady monthly income, we do not think the same is justified because there is nothing to indicate that the deceased was not working on a regular basis. Moreover, a cook in a hotel is a professional and Indian Coffee House is run by a society in an organised manner where the employees get steady employment. Further, nothing stopped the deceased from changing employment and going to another hotel on a regular basis with a better pay. Even if the appeal is allowed on the two grounds raised by the appellant, we feel there cannot be any reduction in the total compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- awarded for the death of the first respondent's husband because simultaneous to allowing the appeal in principle, we will have to increase the income of the deceased for the purpose of compensation to meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances and having regard to the fact that the total compensation is only Rs.3,17,000/-, we decline to interfere with the award, though we accept the grounds raised challenging the award. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms