IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 827 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.299/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER 1 TO 5. --------------------------------- 1. USHAKUMARI V.K.WIDOW OF LATE MANIYAPPAN, PUZHAPAMANGLAM HOUSE, ASHABHAVAN, KUZHIMATTOM KARA, PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE 2. ASHA MANIYAPPAN (MINOR), REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND USHAKUMARI V.K. DO. DO. 3. ASHISH MANIYAPPAN (MINOR) REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND USHAKUMARI.V.K. 4. KUNJAN GANGADHARAN, S/O.KUNJAN, PUSHPAMANGALAM HOUSE, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM,. KURICHY KARA, KURICHI VILLAGE. 5. AMBUJAKSHY, W/O.KUNJAN GANGADHARAN, PUSHPAMANGALAM HOUSE, DO. DO. 6. ULAHANNAN DEVASSIA, S/O.DEVASSIA, NJARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O. CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R1 & R2 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI FOR R1 & R2 SMT.REENA THOMAS FOR R1 & R2 SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The appellant was the 2nd respondent/insurer before the Tribunal. Claimants had claimed compensation against respondents 1 and 2 – the owner and insurer, in respect of loss suffered by them as a result of the death of their predecessor in a motor accident which occurred on 23/11/97. 2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimants i.e., the wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased are entitled for a total amount of Rs.6,73,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? Called upon to explain the M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2004 -: 2 :- precise nature of the grievance of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency i.e., Rs.6,60,000/- (Rs.5,500/- x 12 x 2/3 x 15) is excessive and unreasonably high. 4. There is no dispute about the correctness of the multiplier. Going by the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants, lesser multiplier of 15 applicable to the deceased was correctly taken by the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that Rs.5,500/- per mensem reckoned as the multiplicand is not correct. The deceased is shown to be aged 38 years. The document produced i.e., Ext.A8 shows that he was employed as an Electrician in the Travancore Electro Chemicals and was earning an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. The Tribunal did not evidently take note of the future improvement and prospects in the employment and accepted the present salary of Rs.5,500/- as the multiplicand. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said establishment i.e., the Travancore Electro Chemicals was locked out during the period and, in these M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2004 -: 3 :- circumstances, the Tribunal erred in accepting the amount shown in Ext.A8 as the multiplicand applicable for the entire period of 15 years. The learned counsel further points out that the author of Ext.A8 has not been examined also. 6. There is no serious dispute on the question that the deceased was an Electrician. He had a family consisting of wife and two minor childing in addition to parents depending upon him. Evidently he was maintaining them with his earnings. Ext.A8 certificate has been produced. It is further shown, without any controversy, that the deceased had a stable employment in the Travancore Electro Chemicals. The only contention is that Ext.A8 has not been strictly proved and that the said Company was locked out for some period due to strike. There is no tangible evidence made available to show the period of lock out. Even assuming that there has been lock out, it would be idle to refuse to recognise the stable employment of the deceased and the income therefrom merely on the ground that there was lock out in the company at some point of time. In any view of the matter, we are not satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2004 -: 4 :- suffers from any defect or vice as to justify or warrant appellate interference. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this appeal only deserves to be dismissed. 8. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No. 827 of 2004 -: 5 :-