IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 624 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.2719/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. GETHAKUMARI, W/O. DECEASED GOPINATHA PILLAI, KIZHEKKEKUMARAPARAMBU HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA,CHERTHALA. 2. AJAY, S/O.DECEASED GOPINATHA PILLAI, AGED 12 YEARS, MINOR (DATE OF BIRTH 26-03-1994), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, GEETHAKUMARI, -DO- -DO-. 3. GOWRIYAMMA, MOTHER OF DECEASED GOPINATHA PILLAI, AGED 80 YEARS KIZHEKKEKUMARAPARAMBU HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. V.N. PONNAPPAN, MANYANGATT HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. THAMPY, KURUPPANATTU HOUSE, CHERTHALA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUTHOOT TOWERS, KOCHI-35. R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 624 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the death of husband of the first appellant. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and senior counsel appearing for the insurance company. 2. Though appellants' counsel pointed out that net income adopted at Rs. 1500/- is very low because salary certificate showed that deceased was getting Rs. 3850/- per month, counsel for the insurance company pointed out that first appellant is entitled to family pension and the same should be reduced while fixing the income for determining compensation for loss of dependancy. We find force in this contention because in this case on account of death of her husband, first appellant got employment in Government on compassionate ground. Besides this, she is entitled to family pension, which she will continuously get for life. Even though salary being drawn by the first appellant need not be reckoned, compensation for loss of dependancy should be worked out by taking into account the income of the 2 deceased at the time of his death after reducing the family pension. If an estimated family pension is also reduced, the amount of Rs. 1500/- per month adopted by the MACT for determination of loss of dependancy is justified. However, award requires modification because multiplier adopted is 13 as against 16 applicable based on the age of the deceased who was only 39 years of age at the time of his death. This will entitle the appellants for additional compensation of rs. 54,000/- for loss of dependancy. We feel compensation awarded for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium are meagre. We therefore grant additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- under these two heads. Additional compensation of Rs. 74,000/- granted by us will carry interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3