IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 290 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1139/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST CLAIM PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- ROY V.ABRAHAM, VADAKKEKAITHARATHIL HOUSE MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & 2ND CLAIM PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.SURENDRAN VALIYAPARAMBIL, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SANTHOSH C.D., CHIRAYIL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.2, TRIO,S CHAMBERS, KANJIKZHI, KOTTAYAM. 4. SUNITHA BABY, S.B.I.QUARTERS, MULLUVILA BHAGOM, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. 5. MARY KUTTY BABY, VADAKKEKAITHARATHIL HOUSE MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM, AMAYANNOOR KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.290 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the MACT for the death of wife of the appellant. The appellant lost his wife, who was a State Bank employee, shortly after marriage in a road accident. A joint claim petition was filed by the appellant along with mother and sister of the deceased. MACT granted a total compensation of Rs.5,22,000/- to be shared among the appellant, mother and sister of the deceased, in the ratio of 25:50:25. Even though appellant along with other claimants filed a joint claim petition, strangely the other claimants are not in appeal which means that the mother and sister of the deceased have accepted the award. Since the appellant is contesting the ratio of allotment of awarded amount, naturally there is a conflict of interest among the claimants and therefore appellant has chosen to file the appeal himself. 2 The other claimants are made respondents. 2. After hearing both sides we do not think any modification is required in the award by way of enhancement. The appellant's claim that, contributions towards pension fund and gratuity of the deceased will constitute income of the deceased is not tenable as such contributions will depend on service conditions which may keep on varying. Further, we notice that the compensation awarded is substantial amount, based on actual salary of the deceased. So far as the appellant's challenge against the ratio of bifurcation is concerned, we do not find any substance in the contention, because appellant was not dependent on the deceased wife and he is now stated to be remarried. In any case, loss is more for the family members of the deceased and we do not find any necessity to interfere with the award of the MACT with respect to the quantum of compensation. 3. However, we do not know whether the salary taken at Rs.4,601/- per month is the net salary, after excluding the Bank's contribution towards pension fund and PF. If Rs.4,601/- is the net amount after excluding those contributions, then there is a calculation 3 error in as much as the award amount for loss of dependency would have been Rs.5,52,120/- as against Rs.5,04,000/- granted by the MACT. Therefore, if the net salary after excluding the Bank's contributions under the above head is Rs.4,601/-, then the award needs correction. Appeal is dismissed leaving freedom to the appellant to ask for correction of the award, if there is any mistake as stated above in the award. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms