IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 89 of 2005() --------------------- OPMV.1234/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. VIMALA, W/O. RAVI (LATE), AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, NJARALLOOR KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. SANKAR, S/O. RAVI (LATE), AGED 14 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, NJARALLOOR KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK (DATE OF BIRTH 28-12-1989). 3. KRISHNA, D/O. RAVI (LATE), AGED 8 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, NJARALLOOR KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK (DATE OF BIRTH 28-04-1996). 4. SANKARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK. 5. KARTHIAYINI, W/O. SANKARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. JAYARAMAN, S/O. NATESAN, NO.32, S.N.D ROAD, AMIMGHATTOM, KALTRI, TRICHENGODI, TAMIL NADU. MACA NO.89/2005 2 2. M.RAJENDRAN, S/O. MUNIAPPAN, MAMARATHAB PATTI VILLAGE, CHINDATHAMANI PATTI , P.O., KARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 84, JAWAR BAZAR, BEAT NO.14, KARUR, PIN-639 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 5. B.P.BHARTI, 520 ASC BN. (LRW) HQ-COY 20, MTN DIVISION, C/O.99 APO. ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R4 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.89 of 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Thomas P.Joseph, J. A Junior Commandant Officer in the Indian Army met with a motor accident on 3.8.1998. He was travelling in an army truck when the lorry driven by the second respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent hit the army truck. He sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it on 6.8.1998. Respondents 4 and 5 are the owner and driver of the army truck. Appellants, wife, children and parents of the deceased claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.16 lakhs alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the second respondent. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the second respondent and awarded Rs.10,69,860/- by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Appellants contend that they are entitled to get enhanced compensation and preferred this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation. MACA No.89/2005 2 4. The Point. It is not disputed by the contesting respondents also that the deceased was Junior Commandant Officer (Subedar) in the Indian Army at the time of accident. Ext.A7 is the salary slip showing that he drew salary of Rs.7,807/- in August, 1998. Tribunal accepted that, deducted one third for personal expenses and fixed the monthly contribution to the appellants as Rs.5,025/-. Appellants contend that Tribunal did not take into account the scope of future promotion, pay revisions and enhancement of increments while fixing monthly income. It is also contended that at any rate, there was no scope for deduction of one third for personal expenses since personal expenses of the deceased were being met by the Government of India as he was working in the Indian Army. 5. Deceased was aged 37 years at the relevant time. Though learned counsel for third respondent contended that the deceased could have worked in the Army only for the contract period, we are not persuaded to accept that contention. At his option, deceased could have continued in the Indian Army till the age of retirement. Retirement after the contract period is over, is at the option of the officer concerned. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased would have opted to retire on completion of his contract period. While considering the monthly income and contribution, Tribunal has to take into account the possible pay revisions including the recent pay revisions and future increments. Since the deceased died on 6.8.1998, he could not be benefited by MACA No.89/2005 3 the recent pay revision issued by the Government of India. Certainly, had he not met with the untimely death he could have continued in the Indian Army, got promotions and at any rate, pay revisions and increments. There is some weight in the contention of the appellants that deceased had free accommodation and other facilities provided by the Government of India. Therefore, personal expenses will be less. Taking these aspects into account, we fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- for assessment of compensation and deducting one third for personal expenses, we fix the loss of dependency and contribution at Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged only 37 years at the relevant time, multiplier to be taken is '16' as rightly done by the Tribunal. That brings the compensation payable for loss of dependency and contribution to Rs.11,52,000/-(Rs.6,000x12x16) as against Rs.9,99,360/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the additional compensation payable to the appellants on that count comes to Rs,1,52,640/-. 7. Tribunal has awarded compensation on other admissible heads also. According to the learned counsel, compensation awarded on those heads are low and required interference. But, on going through the award and also considering all the relevant factors and the total amount to which the appellants are found entitled, we are not persuaded to accept that contention. Thus, additional compensation payable to the appellants is Rs.1,52,640/-. They will also get interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. MACA No.89/2005 4 Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellants are allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.1,52,640/- (Rupees One lakh, Fiftytwo thousand, Six hundred and forty only) with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till realization from respondents 1 to 3, jointly and severally. Third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal. From the said amount, appellants 4 and 5 together will get Rs.75,000/-. Rest of the amount shall be shared by appellants 1 to 3 equally. The share of the minors will be deposited in a nationalised bank of their choice in fixed deposit until they attained majority. Appellants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks