IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1097 of 2008 ----------------------- OPMV.3094/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/PETITIONER ------------------------ 1. RAMILA SANKAR, AGED 38 W/O. LATE SANKAR, HOUSE NO. 39/1885 VENKITESH NIVAS, SADANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-16 2. ADITYA (MINOR) AGED 8 YEARS D/O.LATE SANKAR, HOUSE NO. 39/1885 VENKITESH NIVAS, SADANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-16 REPRESENTTED BY THE IST APPELLANT THE NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. E.K.MOHAN RAJ, DRIVER K.S.R.T.C., NEDUMANGAD DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14 4. JANAKY, W/O. PADMANABHA IYYER HOUSE NO. 39/1907,VENKIKTESH NIVAS ERNAKULAM KOCHI-16 5. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ERNAKULAM KOCHI-18. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 & 5 SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R2 SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 1097 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 26th day of September 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The claimants are the appellants. They are the wife and a minor child of the deceased, who suffered personal injuries in a motor accident which took place on 21/9/2000 and succumbed to those injuries after a period of five days of treatment. The claimants are aged 30 years and 11 months respectively on the date of the accident. The deceased was aged 39 years on the date of the accident. He was a System Manager working for the Post and Telegraph Department. His total monthly salary was Rs.7,060/-. Against a total claim of Rs.15 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.6,64,500/- as per the details given in paragraph 18 of the impugned award. Sl.No. Head Amount awarded Reasons (in brief) 1 Transportation, carriage of dead body, funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- 2 Damage clothing Rs. 500/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs.1,000/- MAMCA 1097/2008 2 Sl.No. Head Amount awarded Reasons (in brief) 4 Attendant expenses Rs.1,000/- 5 Treatment expenses Rs.2,00,000/- Bills for Rs.1,99,247.10 produced as per Ext.A13 6 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Death after 5 days 7 Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- 8 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 9 Loss of dependency Rs.4,32,000/- 4500x12x2/3x12 Total Rs.6,64,500/- =========== 2. The appellants assail the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is too low and inadequate. The third respondent – Insurance Company was made entirely liable under the impugned award. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on various grounds. 4. First of all it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is grossly inadequate. Reliance was placed on Ext.A14 salary certificate which shows that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.7060/-. Deductions to the tune of Rs.1,970/- were MAMCA 1097/2008 3 there and the net carry home salary was Rs.5,090/-. The monthly earnings of Rs.7,060/- is made up of basic pay - Rs.4500/- D.A. - Rs.1710/-, HRA – Rs.675/-, CCA-Rs.100/- and T.A – Rs.75/-. The Tribunal took only Rs.4,500/-(basic pay) as the monthly earnings of the deceased. This is incorrect. The entire amount of Rs.7,060/- must have been reckoned as the monthly income of the deceased, contends the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the deceased was having a stable and settled employment in the Post & Telegraph Department. He was aged less than 40 years. Going by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[ (2009)6 S.C.C.121], future increase in salary has got to be taken into consideration. 50% notional addition to the actual salary is to be made to provide for such possibility of enhancement of salary. Going by the Dictum in Sarla Verma (supra), it is 15 that must be reckoned as the multiplier applicable to the persons of age group of 35-40 years. The Tribunal erred in reckoning only 12 as the multiplier. 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance company on the contrary submits that at any rate the travelling allowance of Rs.75/- payable which, in the absence of better evidence must be MAMCA 1097/2008 4 reckoned as reimbursement of the actual amount spent in connection with travel necessitated by the employment cannot be included in the multiplicand. Learned counsel for the Insurance company Mr.Jayasankar further points out that due deductions for income tax, profession tax and other cesses will also have to be made from the total monthly earnings. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that Rs.6,500/- can be reckoned as the monthly income less the amount of taxes and cesses payable. To that must be added 50% to provide for the future increases in emoluments of the young deceased aged below 40 years. 15 has certainly got to be taken as the multiplier going by the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra). 1/3rd has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. So reckoned, the appellant would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 11,70,000/-(6500x12x150/100 x 2/3 x 15 ). 7. We are not persuaded to agree that the impugned award deserves interference under any other head. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusions that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.7,38,000/- (6500x12x150/100x2/3x15=11,70,000 minus 4,32,000). MAMCA 1097/2008 5 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contends and we agree that interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum is inadequate. We are satisfied that the interest ought to be awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum. We are further satisfied that the appellants are entitled to proportionate cost as indicated in the decision in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K.[2011 (3) K.H.C.728]. 10. In the result, a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.7,38,000/-(rupees seven lakhs thirty eight thousand only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. c)We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment/realisation. d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE ks M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE MAMCA 1097/2008 6