IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 483 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.398/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., IST FLOOR, P.B. NO. 32, PERUMAL BUILDINGS, PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS 1 TO 3 AND R1 & R2 --------------- 1. KAVITHA.K, W/O. LATE BAIJU, JAYASREE HOUSE, 25 YEARS, CHEMMENCHERI POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNA.N.P (MINOR), S/O. BAIJU, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER IST PETITIONER KAVITHA (-DO-) 3. N. VIJAYALAKSHMI, 49 YEARS, W/O. SREEDHARAN, JAYASREE HOUSE, -DO- 4. SUJATHA.A.V, AUROTH VEEDU HOUSE, CHENGALAI, POST SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT OWNER OF THE JEEP KED 9176. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.483 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. 3rd respondent before the Tribunal/insurer is the appellant before us. Requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was granted to the appellant/insurer by the Tribunal, it is submitted. Claimants are the wife aged 25 years, a minor daughter and mother aged 49 years of the deceased who was aged 28 years at the time of the accident. He was employed in the K.S.E.B and was drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.6,654/-. The accident took place on 25.08.2005 and the claimants staked their claim for compensation. A total amount of Rs.12 lakhs was claimed as compensation. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.9,91,176/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and a further amount of Rs.25,000/- as cost. The appellant/insurer claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance ? Called upon to explain the nature of the M.A.C.A. No.483 of 2009 2 challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on three grounds - ie. the amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency, loss of love and affection and the cost awarded. 3. The compensation is awarded under the following heads: i) Loss of dependency : Rs.6,654/- X 12 X 2/3 X 18 Rs.9,58,176/- ii) Transportation : Rs.1,000/- iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.2,000/- iv) Loss of love and affection : Rs.25,000/- v) Conjugal society : Rs.5,000/- ................. Total : Rs.9,91,176/- ................... 4. The learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.6,654/- is not fair, reasonable, just or correct. As per Ext.A5 salary certificate, the gross monthly salary payable is Rs.6,654/-. M.A.C.A. No.483 of 2009 3 The Tribunal adopted the same as the multiplicand. The deceased was aged only 28 years and in any view of the matter, he could be assured of 27 more years of service under the K.S.E.B, ie. till he attained the age of superannuation - 55 years. Future increases in employment prospects and the probable increase in salary were not taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the gross salary at the time of the accident was reckoned as the multiplicand. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the entire gross amounts should not have been adopted as the multiplicand. What amount or which portion of the amount is liable to be deducted from the multiplicand ? There is no specific contention that any specific part of this gross salary is liable to be deducted as the same would have been unavailable to the deceased or the claimants. There is no contention also that any part of this gross salary represents reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred in connection with the employment. There is also no contention that there was any deduction of tax from this gross salary of Rs.6,654/- per mensem. In these circumstances M.A.C.A. No.483 of 2009 4 we are satisfied that the Tribunal committed no error warranting appellate interference in reckoning the gross salary as stated in Ext.A5 as the multiplicand for computing the quantum of loss of dependency by the multiplier-multiplicand method. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that adoption of 18 as the multiplier is not justified. It is by now trite that the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act can safely be adopted and imported as a guide while attempting to compute compensation for claim under Section 166 of the Act. Under the second schedule, for a person of the age group of 25- 30, 18 is the multiplier and the Tribunal according to us have committed no error in accepting 18 as the multiplier. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that award of an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection is not justified. The deceased left behind a young wife aged 25 years and an infant minor child. A total amount of Rs.30,000/- is seen awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. We are not satisfied in the circumstances of the case that the award of the total amount M.A.C.A. No.483 of 2009 5 of Rs.30,000/- under the two heads of loss of love and affection and loss of conjugal society deserve or warrant appellate interference. 8. Coming to the question of cost awarded, it is contended that the award of Rs.25,000/- is excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant, confronted with Rule 381(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, accepts that the amount of Rs.25,000/- will not in any way be in excess of the amount payable under Rule 381(2) of the Rules. The challenge on that ground is also thus found to be without any merit. 9. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-