IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1889 of 2007() ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 2.11.2006 IN OPMV.766/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR) .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------- 1. K.L.SOBHANAKUMARI, W/O.LATE RAVUNNY, C/O.KADAMAMKANDATH HOUSE, P.O.KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR-27. 2. SOUMYA.K., D/O.LATE RAVUNNY, C/O.KADAMAMKANDATH HOUSE, P.O.KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR-27. 3. MINOR SANOOP, S/O.LATE RAVUNNY, C/O.KADAMAMKANDATH HOUSE, P.O.KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR-27. 4. PARUKUTTYAMMA @ THANKAMMA, W/O.LATE SANKARAN NAIR, KODERI HOUSE, KAINOOR P.O., MOORKKANKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. P.G.SURESH, 8/138, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PAMBOOR, P.O.KUTTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KOCHUMON, S/O.JACOB, CHAKKUPURAKKAL HOUSE, ALUVA BANK ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PERINCHERY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU. R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellants are the widow, two children and mother of the deceased who died as a result of the injuries in a motor accident. The appeal is filed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the amount fixed as income of the deceased is low. The Tribunal has notionally fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-. The learned counsel would submit that the deceased was working in a private company. He relies on A9 salary certificate , A10 employment certificate and A11 grant of advance of the Employees Provident Fund Account. One third income is dedected for personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier adopted is 15. MACA 1889/2005 -2- 4. In the decision in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another {2009 ACJ 1298 } the Apex Court has held inter alia that where the number of dependant family members are 4 to 6 the expense can be taken as 1/4th. Further, the Apex Court has fixed the multiplier in respect of a person falling in the age group 41-45 as 14. In this case, the deceased was aged 45. Therefore, the correct multiplier to be adopted should be 14. 5. The question therefore arises essentially is what is to be treated as the income of the deceased. The deceased was aged 45 maintaining a family of 4 persons including himself besides of course his own mother. The accident took place in the year 2003. Of course, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there must be enhancement by way of prospects of future earnings. There is no clear evidence to show that the deceased was a permanent employee as such. No doubt, reliance is placed on A11 to show that advance was taken from the Employees Provident Fund Account. It is not possible to accept it as a case of death of a permanent employee. MACA 1889/2005 -3- 6. We note that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection, and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate besides certain other amounts. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) has taken the view that the Tribunal may award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Here Rs.10,000/- is seen granted in excess of the amount which ought to have been granted going by the decision of the Supreme Court. 7. Bearing in mind dependancy compensation to be awarded after perusing Ext.A9, A10 and A11 and considering the facts we can safely fix the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month. On the said basis applying the multiplier of 14 and after deducting 1/4th the appellants would be entitled to Rs.3,02,400/- as against Rs.2,40,000/- already awarded under the head loss of dependancy. But, we must deduct Rs.10,000/- towards excess granted under loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. This means that the appellants would be entitled to Rs.2,92,000/-. After MACA 1889/2005 -4- deducting Rs.2,40,000/- already granted the appellants would be entitled to Rs.52,000/- more under the head loss of dependancy. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are allowed to realise Rs.52,000/- more with interest at 7.5 percent from the date of the petition till realisation from the respondents. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS