IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 357 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.27/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN OPMV. --------------------------------------------- 1. SULOCHANA, W/O.LATE MURALEEDHARAN, PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, KARUVANNUR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. BHARGAVI, W/O.LATE SANKARAN, PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, KARUVANNUR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. DIVYA, D/O.LATE MURALEEDHARAN, PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, KARUVANNUR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. DHANYA,D/O.LATE MURALEEDHARAN, PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, KARUVANNUR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 5. ARYA (MINOR) AGED 12 YEARS, D/O.LATE MURALEEDHARAN, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND-MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT,SULOCHANA, PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, KARUVANNUR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OPMV. ----------------------------------------------- 1. ALEX, S/O.JOSE, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, MANNUTHI DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. A.K.JOHNY, AKKARA HOUSE, POLICE STATION ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, THRISSUR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.357 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered on account of the death of one Muralidharan, husband of the 1st claimant and father of claimants 3 to 5. Deceased was the son of the 2nd claimant. Death occurred on the date of the accident itself. The deceased was aged 48 years. He was a Sub Engineer in the service of the Trichur Corporation. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.10,05,225/- against a total claim of Rs.12 lakhs. The claimants lament that the compensation awarded is too meager. 2. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the amount of Rs.9,02,920/- under the head of loss of dependency awarded is too meager and insufficient. There is no dispute specifically raised against the amounts awarded under the other heads. But we do note that an M.A.C.A. No.357 of 2009 2 amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded for loss of conjugal society, Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for loss of estate. 3. The Tribunal worked out the loss of dependency adopting the multiplier 13, which is admissible for a person of the age group between 45 and 50 years under the second schedule. The deceased had 7 years' service more before he was scheduled to retire on superannuation at the age of 55 years. For this period of 7 years, deducting one third of the salary for his personal expenses till the date of retirement, compensation was worked out using the multiplier 7. For the post superannuation period of 6 years, the Tribunal, in addition to the compensation for loss of estate, reckoned Rs.2,725/- as monthly deprivation of dependency. The counsel argues that the Tribunal had not realistically taken into account the possible income from post retirement employment which the deceased could reasonably have aspired to secure. The Tribunal took note of the loss of pension alone and to this extent the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency warrants interference, it is contended. M.A.C.A. No.357 of 2009 3 4. We are unable to agree. The Tribunal had taken the multiplier to be 13 notwithstanding the fact that the claim was not under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the fact that amounts have been awarded much in excess of the amounts awardable under Section 163 A in this claim under Section 166 of the said Act. The Tribunal, according to us, committed no error warranting interference in adopting different multiplicands for the 6 more years during which period the deceased would have been in service and for the period of 7 more years during which period he must have been retired from service. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the total amount awarded as also the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency are absolutely fair, just and reasonable. The same do not warrant interference. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-