IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1175 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.487/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- SHARADA V., W/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE BSNL QUARTERS NO.B-1, PEERUMEDU, NOW RESIDING AT MADFATHIPARAMBIL, VANDUMOPATHAL KARA ERUMELY NORTH VILAGE,MUNDAKKAYAM BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.P.NOOR ZAMEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAMESH, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN 55-NADU STREET, AMBUR TOWN DEVALAPURAM, VANIYAMBADI TALUK VELLOOR, TAMIL NADU STATE. 2. J.RAJANNA, S/O.H.G.JAYARAMANA MARIAMMAN KOVIL STREET, PERIYARKUPPAM, AMBUR, VELOORE TAMIL NADU, PIN635814 3. THE UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, AMBUR BRANCH, 11-A-MC ROAD, AMBUR PIN-635802, VELLOORE 4. KALYANI, W/O.KRISHNANKUNJU KUNDAPPALLY , ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE RPC COLONY, VANDAMPASTHAL KARA, MUNDAKKAYAM PO., (2ND PETITIONER) ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R3 SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1175 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. 1st claimant is the appellant. 2nd claimant is arrayed as the 4th respondent. Claimants are the wife and mother respectively of late Karunakaran, a person aged 59 years, who succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident, which took place on 14.04.2004. He was employed as a Telephone Mechanic in B.S.N.L. He had one more year (12 months) of service left. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,07,068/- as compensation as per details given paragraph 9 of the impugned award which we extract below. Transport to hospital 2,000/- Funeral Expenses 3,000/- Pain and suffering 10,000/- Loss of love and affection 10,000/- Loss of consortium 15,000/- Loss of dependency 2,67,068/- Total 3,07,068/- 2 MACA No. 1175/2008 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant wants to assail the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. An amount of Rs.3,07,068/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. No challenge is raised before us against quantum of compensation awarded under other heads. 4. For deceased persons of age group 55 to 60, '9' is the multiplier to be adopted going by the dictum in Sarla Varma & another Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (6) SCC 121]. The deceased being a married person with his wife and mother depending on him 1/3 is to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased. This is also evident from dictum in Sarla Varma (supra). 5. What is the multiplicand to be taken into reckoning? This is the only area of dispute. Concededly the deceased had 3 MACA No. 1175/2008 one more year of service before his superannuation from BSNL and during that period he would have been entitled to get an amount of Rs.11,697/- per mensem. At least for that period that can be safely reckoned as the multiplicand. 6. So far as the remaining period 8 years (9 minus 1) is concerned we have to identify the monthly earnings of the deceased. Deceased would have earned full pension which is evident from the award. The dependent members of the family will now get family pension. The difference between superannuation pension that the deceased would have drawn and family pension which dependents would now get is the net loss on that aspect. In addition to that, the deceased who was a telephone mechanic would have found some post retiral assignments. He would have earned amounts from such assignments. Even in the absence of any better evidence it appears to be easy to assume that he would have been able as a technically qualified person to earn an income of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem. Since we are not taking into consideration his pension income it is not necessary to deduct 1/3 for his personal expenses. Employing '8' as the multiplier quantum of 4 MACA No. 1175/2008 compensation has to be ascertained. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a further amount of Rs. 1,14,508/- (Rupees One lakh fourteen thousand five hundred and eight only) as compensation under head of loss of dependency as shown below. a. Loss of dependency for the first year Rs. 93,576/- (11697 x 12 x 2/3) b. for the remaining period of 8 years Rs. 2,88,000/- (3000 x 12 x 8) ------------------- Rs. 3,81,576 ======== Total = 3,81,576 minus 267068 = 1,14,508/- 8. In the result a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 1,14,508/- (Rupees One lakh fourteen thousand five hundred and eight only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire 5 MACA No. 1175/2008 amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the tribunal in the impugned award. d) We direct that proportionate costs be paid in the proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation hereby awarded as per the dictum in Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu K. [2011 (3) KLT 943]. e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT JUDGE V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE dnc