IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 913 of 2005(D) ----------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.121/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM. .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. SHINY @ SHEELAMMA, W/O.SHAJI VARGHESE, KIZHAKKE ALUNKAL, ARPOOKKARA VILLAGE. 2. SHEKHA, D/O.SHAJI (MINOR), DO. DO. 3. SHON, S/O.SHAJI (MINOR), DO. DO. 4. VARKEY S/O.ULAHANNAN, KIZHAKKE ALUNKAL, ARPOOKKARA KARA, ARPOOKKARA EAST P.O. 5. THRESSIAMMA, W/O.VARKEY, DO. DO. (MINOR PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER NEXT FRIEND SHINY, W/O.SHAJI ALUNKAL HOUSE, ARPOOKKARA EAST (P.O). BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL, ADV. SRI.P.NOORSAMEER. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. MURALI, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KRISHNAVILASAM, BEHIND N.S.S., KARAYOGAM, THAYAMKARI KARA, EDATHUVA VILLAGE, MANKOMBU TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. M.A.C.A. NO. 913/2005-D: 2. MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.SIGMA ENTERPRISES, MAK HOUSE, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM. 4. T.N.JANARDHANAN, S/O.SANKARAN, VENGATHU HOUSE, KOTTACHIRA AMSOM, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM, TALUK. 5. K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,S.C, R5 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC, ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, R6 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.913 OF 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated 7th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . One Shaji died in a motor accident that occurred on 28.12.2001. His wife, two minor children and parents filed application for compensation claiming an amount of Rs.20,00,000/=. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.4,08,500/=. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent insurance company as well as the 4th respondent driver of the bus insured by the 6th respondent insurance company and negligence was apportioned equally on both drivers. Since the dispute is only regarding the quantum of compensation, we are only considering that aspect in this case. 2. The deceased was a postgraduate in commerce. Ext.A10 is the degree certificate. At the time of the accident, the deceased was employed as General Manager of Hotel Lucia Palace, Thrissur, a five star hotel. Earlier he worked as Finance Manager. Ext.A8 is the salary certificate which shows that his salary was Rs.9,314/- at the time of the MACA.913/2005 2 accident. His employer, PW2 was examined to prove the same. The Tribunal did not accept the same for no valid reasons and fixed Rs.3,000/= as the monthly income. It is not disputed that the deceased was a postgraduate in commerce and PW2 also produced Ext.A11 annual statement of accounts to show that the monthly income mentioned in the salary certificate was correct. Ext.X1 is the statement of contribution in employment provident fund. There was no reason to reject that certificate. If that certificate is taken into consideration, the provident fund contribution of the deceased was made on the basis of monthly salary of Rs.5,064/= excluding certain allowances. It is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, K.S.R.T.C v. Susamma Thomas ((1994) 2 SCC 176) held that future prospects also should be considered. Taking all these aspects, we fix Rs.6,000/= as the monthly income. After deducting one third for personal expenses, Rs.4,000/= can be fixed as the monthly loss of dependency to the family. The Tribunal fixed 16 as the multiplier. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that life span is increased and economy is fluctuating and taking into consideration of all these circumstances, 18 should be taken as the multiplier and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie (2005 (3) KLT 227 (SC)) wherein it was held that for a 37 year old person 18 can be the appropriate multiplier. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance MACA.913/2005 3 company submitted that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, second schedule should be taken as the guideline for fixing the multiplier and there are many cases in which even a lesser multiplier was fixed. The Supreme Court in Smt.Supe Dei and others v. M/s.National Insurance company Ltd. and another (JT 2002 (Supp.1) SC 451), Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy.Director General, Geological Survey of India and another ((2003) 3 SCC 148) and A.P.S.R.T.C. v. M.Pentaiah Chary (2007 AIR SCW 5689) held that except in exceptional circumstances, second schedule should be taken as guidelines for calculating compensation. We are of the opinion that when the Tribunal fixed multiplier on the basis of the guidelines taken from the second schedule, no interference is required by the appellate court. If that be so, compensation payable for loss of dependency will be double as we have fixed Rs.6,000/= as the monthly income and Rs.4,000/= as the monthly loss of dependency. Therefore, the additional compensation payable under this head will be Rs.3,84,000/=. It is also contended that if the deceased had continued in service, he could have earned more than double the amount and the entire hope of the appellants is lost. It is also submitted that at the time of death, the children were minors and compensation granted for loss of fatherly love and affection is very low. Only Rs.2,000/= was granted for funeral expenses. Considering the social status of the deceased, a high amount ought to have been MACA.913/2005 4 awarded. It is further contended that compensation granted under other heads are also very low. Considering the total compensation awarded, we are not enhancing the same. The award was passed in 2004.. We direct the third and six respondent insurance companies to deposit the above amount of Rs.3,84,000/= in equal shares with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the first appellant (wife of the deceased) has remarried. Taking into account all these circumstances, out of the deposited amount, a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/= each is allowed to be withdrawn by appellants 4 and 5, parents and an amount of Rs.50,000/= is allowed to be withdrawn by the first appellant, wife. Balance amount should be deposited in a nationalised bank in the name of 2nd and third appellants enabling them to withdraw the same at the age of 21 or at the time of their marriage, whichever is earlier. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks