IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1435 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.979/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION COIMBATOOR DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 2nd RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- 1. S.JOHN JUSTIN RAJ, S/O.SUNDER RAJ, RAJ COTTAGE, NEAR CSI CHURCH, CHITHARAL P.O., KANYAKUMARI-600 003. 2. DONALD JUSTIN (MINOR) S/O.JOHN JUSTIN RAJ, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER JOHN JUSTIN RAJ, RAJ COTTAGE, NEAR CSI CHURCH, CHITHRAL P.O., KANYAKUMARI-600 003. 3. PREMKUMAR, S/O.SUVISESHANMUTHU, B-17, CHERAN NAGER, DERAPURAM ROAD, THUNGABI P.O., UDUMALPETTA-600 001. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1435 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Owner of the vehicle is the appellant. Claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. They had claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them as a result of the death of the deceased - one Salilakumari, wife of the 1st claimant and mother of the second claimant, minor. She succumbed to injuries in a motor accident which took place on 25/1/2006. Against a total claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, the tribunal though it came to the conclusion that the total amount exceeds Rs.16,00,000/- awarded only an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as the claim was limited to that amount. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant only submits that the appellant is challenging the quantum of compensation directed to be paid under the head of loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grievance of the appellant is only that the tribunal had reckoned 30% as the probable increase in the salary M.A.C.A.No.1435 of 2011 2 to accommodate the future improvement of prospects in employment. The tribunal has clearly given the reasons. The tribunal is perfectly justified by the directions issued in Sarla Verma v. D.T.C [(2009)6 SCC 121]. The appellant is unable to accept that. The deceased was in settled and stable employment - as a teacher in Government service. In any view of the matter, we are unable to find fault with the tribunal for having given 30% increase to accommodate future improvement in prospects. 3. In any view of the matter, we find no merit in the challenge raised. The appeal, we are satisfied, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limini. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1435 of 2011 3 M.A.C.A.No.1435 of 2011 4 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010