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 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 M.A.C.A.No. 498 of 2011 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/10/2010 IN O.P.(MV)123/2006, 182/2006& 505/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ SHIMNA.K.B,W/O.SAJEEVAN,AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALESH BHAVAN,PALYADNADA.P.O, IRINGAL VIA,673530,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. T.SMITHA,D/O.VIJAYAN,PARAPPURATH HOUSE, MURIYAD AMSOM DESOM,P.O.MURIYAD,KUTHUPARAMBA(VIA), PON:680694,THALASSERY,KANNUR(R.C.OWNER OF KL-13M- 7693-MINI LORRY) 2. SHAJI.N,S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,AGED 30 YEARS, VALIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE,ERUVATTI AMSOM, PANUNDA DESOM,PINARAYI,P.O.ERUVATTI,670647, KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN 670647 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,R.S.ROAD,PALAKKAD-678001,POLICY NO.15092/05.PIN 678 001 4. NARAYANI,W/O.KUNHIKKANNAN,AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALAYATTUMMAL HOUSE,P.O.CHENDAYAD PIN-670692,PANOOR VIA(MOTHER OF THE DECEASED). 5. CHANADRIKA,D/O.KUNHIKKANNAN,40 YEARS, PALYATTUMMAL HOUSE,P.O.CHENDAYAD,KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN 670 692. 6. RAJAN,S/O.KUNHIKANNAN,38 YEARS, PALAYATTUMMAL HOUSE,P.O.CHENDAYAD,KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN 670 692. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R4-6 SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1,2 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 498 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 1st day of August 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The appellant is the claimant. She claimed compensation as the wife of the deceased, who was about 32 years old when he suffered injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. The mother of the deceased had also staked claim for compensation. The Tribunal took up both the claims together and proceeded to award a total amount of Rs.7,03,000/- as per the details shown below: Sl.No Head of claim Amount claimed in OP (MV) 505/10 Amount claimed in OP (MV) 123/06 Amount awarded (in rupees) Basis-vital details in a nut shell 1 Transportation expenses 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- Rs.1,000/-(No bills produced) 2 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 50,000/- 5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 3 Loss of dependency 7,38,000/ - 6,80,000/ - 6,72,000/- Rs.3500x12x16 4 Loss of consortium 2,00,000/ - 10,000/- Couple aged 32 and 23 years at the time of death MACA 498/2011 2 Sl.No Head of claim Amount claimed in OP (MV) 505/10 Amount claimed in OP (MV) 123/06 Amount awarded (in rupees) Basis-vital details in a nut shell 5 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000/ - 10,000/- widow+aged mother 6 Funeral 25,000/- 5,000/- Total 6,93,000/- + 10,000/- Rs.7,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%per annum from 15/02/06 till realisation 2. The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded as loss of consortium was directed to be paid to the wife exclusively. The remaining amount was ordered to be divided and paid equally to the mother and the appellant-wife. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-mother supports that contention that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency, i.e.Rs.6,72,000/- (Rs.3500x12x16) (i.e.monthly contribution 5013x2/3 rounded off to Rs.3500/-)is not adequate. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submit that the deceased, a person aged about 32 years and who was in settled and stable MACA 498/2011 3 Government service was earning an income of Rs.5,013/- at the time of his death. The Tribunal did accept the same also. But the Tribunal unfortunately did not make provision for future improvement in prospects. Relying on paragraph 24 of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009)6 S.C.C.121], the learned counsel for the appellant and the 4th respondent contend that the Tribunal has erred grossly in not making provision for future improvement in earnings. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Insurance company also. There is virtually no dispute that the Tribunal has arrived at the multiplicand without making due provision for enhancement. We are, in these circumstances satisfied that the multiplicand can be taken to be 2500 more than the amount of Rs.5013/- reckoned by the Tribunal. This means that the appellant and the 4th respondent together shall be entitled to a further amount of Rs.2500x12x2/3x16, i.e. an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded. The appellant and the 4th respondent shall be entitled to the said additional amount also equally. 5. No other disputes are raised before us. MACA 498/2011 4 6. In the result, a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The impugned award is upheld in all other respects. But it is directed that the appellant and the 4th respondent together shall be entitled to a further amount of Rs.3,20,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded. They shall both be entitled to the amount equally. c)We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rates and for the period as directed in the impugned award. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE MACA 498/2011 5