IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 350 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.698/1990 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. SREEKALA, W/O.LATE P.R.PRADEEP RAJ AND D/O.THOTTUPURA SOMASUNDARAN, KOTTAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JEEVAN RAJ, MINOR, S/O.LATE P.R.PRADEEP RAJ, REP. BY THE NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN, MOTHER SREEKALA, W/O. LATE P.R.PRADEEP RAJ AND D/O.THOTTUPURA SOMASUNDARAN, KOTTAPPURAM P.O., THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TELE COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. 2. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, VIVEK VIHAR, NEAR ARYAKUZHI BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, AYIKARAMURI, MUTTATHURA VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 3. RAJARATNAM, PANDARIKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKUMURY, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O., TRICHUR TALUK. 4. RADHA, W/O.RAJARATNAM, PANDARIKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKUMURY, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O., TRICHUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.350 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them consequent to the death of the deceased who was the husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant. The parents of the deceased filed a separate claim petition. Both the petitions were disposed of earlier by the Tribunal and the respondents filed two appeals against the common award. The appellants herein also filed an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. Another Division Bench of this Court, as per judgment dated 6.1.2003 in M.F.A. Nos. 500 of 1994, 501 of 1994 and 1081 of 1999, considered the question in detail and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein, but allowed the appeals filed by the respondents. We extract the operative portion of the said common judgment below: M.A.C.A. NO.350/2006 2 “8. As already mentioned above, the appropriate multiplier shall be 20. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the claimants has to be recalculated applying the multiplier of 20 instead of 26 adopted by the Tribunal. 9. Therefore, M.F.A.Nos.500 and 501 of 1994 are allowed in part and M.F.A. No.1081 of 1999 is dismissed. In all other respects the award is confirmed.” 3. The matter went back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal followed the directions of the Division Bench and recalculated the compensation payable, accepting all the other details which were accepted in the earlier judgment, but reckoning the multiplier as 20 instead of 26. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed. 4. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is their grievance? The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal is totally incorrect. The Tribunal had not taken into account the future prospects of the deceased, contends counsel. 5. We are afraid, it is too late in the day for the appellants to advance such a contention. In the light of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in M.F.A. No.500 of 1994 and connected matters, it M.A.C.A. NO.350/2006 3 cannot be disputed that it was not an open remand, but a closed remand and the only direction to the Tribunal after such remand was to rework the compensation adopting 20 instead of 26 as the multiplier. The appeal preferred by the appellants was specifically dismissed and the award impugned in those appeals was upheld “in all other respects”. 6. In the light of the very clear finding/direction in the earlier order of remand, the appellants cannot be heard to advance any grievance against findings/conclusions confirmed by the earlier judgment of the Division Bench. It follows that the appeal deserves and can only be dismissed . We do so. No costs. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.350/2006 4 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.350/2006 JUDGMENT 5th March, 2009