IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 930 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.3645/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.GEETHAKUMARI, W/O.LATE V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, VALIYARA HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O., N.PARUR. 2. MENON VARUN KRISHNAN, S/O.LATE V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, VALIYARA HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O., N.PARUR. 3. MENON RAHUL KRISHNAN (MINOR), S/O.LATE V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, VALIYARA HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O., N.PARUR. (MINOR 3RD APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER, IST APPELLANT). BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.NAZAR, S/O.KUNJU MARAKKAR, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR, COCHIN-34. 2. V.K.MANZOOR, S/O.KUNJU MARAKKAR, VALIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, WEST OF THAIKAVU, CHERANELLOOR, COCHIN-34. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., SHANMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN-31. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.930 OF 2005-D ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT,J. The Claimants are the appellants. They are the wife and two children of the deceased who suffered injuries and succumbed to such injuries on 2.11.1998. Against a claim for Rs.12,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,71,000/-as per the details shown below: i) Loss of dependency : Rs.5,40,000/- ii) Funeral expenses : Rs.3,000/- iii) Carriage expenses : Rs.2,000/- iv) Transport expenses : Rs.1,000/- v) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/- vi) Love and affection : Rs.10,000/- vii) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- -------------------- Total Rs.5,71,000/- ========= 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of M.A.C.A No.930 OF 2005-D 2 compensation awarded. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal erred grossly while ascertaining the loss of dependency by employing the multiplier multiplicand method. Both the multiplier and multiplicand were not taken reasonably and justly, contends the counsel. The deceased was a Staff Officer of the Bank of India. He had a stable and permanent employment. His monthly income as on the date of his death was Rs.16,820/- as per the details given below: Basic pay : Rs.8970-00 Dearness Allowance : Rs.5992-00 CCA : Rs.230-00 HRA : Rs.1400-70 Fixed Pers. Allowance : Rs.236-00 ------------------ Total Rs.16829-37 ======== 3. He had 8 more years of service left. Definitely salary must have risen upwards it had continued to be employed. The Tribunal reckoned only Rs.5,000/- as the multiplicand to ascertain the compensation for loss of dependency. At that stage of the career of the deceased, it was very likely that his official position could have improved and salary should also have proportionately M.A.C.A No.930 OF 2005-D 3 increased. Provision must also be made for liability to pay income tax. The advantage derived by accelerated lumpsum payment has also got to be borne in mind. In any view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the monthly net earnings for the purpose of computing the multiplicand must have been reckoned at least at Rs.12,000/-. For the personal expenses of the deceased, 1/3rd has to be deducted. 4. Going by the schedule or by the precedents, we are satisfied that for such a person with settled and stable employment aged 52 years multiplier could safely had been reckoned at 11. 8 years he would have continued in his employment with the Bank. Remaining 3 years post retirement employment prospects would have been there. We are satisfied that Rs.5,000/- can safely be reckoned as the minimum contribution to the family after retirement from service of the bank. 5. It is then contended that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of estate. We assume that there has been an omission. Conventional amount of Rs 10,000/- can be awarded under that head. M.A.C.A No.930 OF 2005-D 4 6. Appellants raise a further grievance that the amounts awarded under the head of love and affection and loss of consortium are not justified. Only an amount of Rs.10,000/- each has been awarded. We agree that an amount of Rs.20,000/- each can be awarded. 7. On the basis of the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the claimants/appellants are entitled to following further amounts in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal. 1. Loss of dependency : Rs.5,40,000/- (15000x12x2/3x8 plus 5000x12x2/3x3 minus Rs.5,40,000/-) 2. Love and affection : Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.20,000 minus Rs.10,000/-) 3. Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.20,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-) 4. Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/- ------------------ Total Rs.5,70,000/- ======== 8. In the result: (a.) This appeal is allowed in part. M.A.C.A No.930 OF 2005-D 5 (b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs seventy thousand only) in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal. c. The entire amount of compensation shall bear interest at the rate directed by the Tribunal. d. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns The figure Rs.12,000/- occurring in the penultimate sentence of paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 6.7.2011 in M.A.C.A No.930/2005 is corrected as Rs.16,000/-, as per order dated 28.3.2012 in I.A.No.895/12 in M.A.C.A No.930/2005. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) M.A.C.A No.930 OF 2005-D 6