IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 650 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.831/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. ALEY THOMAS, W/O. LATE K.C. THOMAS, KONDADAMMPADAVIL, AREEKARA, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. GIBY MARY THOMAS (MINOR), D/O. ALEY THOMAS, KONDADAMMPADAVIL, AREEKARA, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. JOBY PETER THOMAS (MINOR), S/O. ALEY THOMAS, KONDADAMMPADAVIL, AREEKARA, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. K.U. CHUMMAR, S/O. UTHUPPAN, KONDADAMMPADAVIL, AREEKARA, VELIYANNOOR P.O. 5. MARIYAM CHUMMAR, W/O. K.U.CHUMMAR, KONDADAMMPADAVIL, AREEKARA, VELIYANNOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. M.C. MATHAI, S/O. MATHAI, MALEMUNDAKKAL HOUSE, UZHAVOOR. 2. M.J. STEPHEN, MALEMUNDAKKAL HOUSE, CHAKKAMPUZHA, UZHAVOOR. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PALA. 4. A.C. JOSE, S/O. CHUMMAR, ERICATTU HOUSE, AREEKARA. 5. BIJU KARIMAKKIL, AREEKARA, VELIYANNOOR. ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MODAYIL FOR R4 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 SRI.JAMES KURIAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.650 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 24th November, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J. The wife and children along with parents of a motor accident victim approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the 3rd respondent insurance company. The insurance company was contesting the case on merit after getting permission under section 173 of the M.V.Act. Even though the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the 3rd respondent insurance company, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,23,182/-. The only dispute is regrading the quantum of compensation. The deceased was aged 47 at the time of accident. 13 was taken as the multiplier by the Tribunal. MACA 650/06 -:2:- Even though it is argued that a higher multiplier should be taken, considering the present increase in expectancy of life, we are of the opinion that taking second schedule as a guideline, no enhancement is required in the multiplier taken by the Tribunal. The deceased was an employee of BSNL (Technical Assistant). Ext.A9 salary certificate shows that his monthly income was Rs.9731/- . Ext. A9 certificate was proved by the Accounts officer. Immediately after the death of the deceased, the pay was revised with retrospective effect and his total salary after the pay revision is Rs.10,390/- as per Ext.A10. Ext.A10 certificate was also proved by examining the Accounts Officer as well as the Sub Divisional Engineer. It was further proved that if he had been continuing in service without termination, he would have been promoted as J.T.O. and subsequently, he would have retired as a Sub Divisional Engineer within a few years and he would have obtained a salary of Rs.25,000/-. It is contended by the claimants that the present salary as a Technical Assistant is more than MACA 650/06 -:3:- Rs.15,000/-. In a public sector undertaking, salary will be revised periodically and his salary at the time of death taking into account retrospective revision is Rs.10390/- as can be seen from Ext.A10. It is argued that taking into account the prospective remuneration, at least 15,000/- should have been taken as the monthly income. It is further argued that, if he was continued in service, his retiral benefits will be calculated on the basis of the last drawn salary and time bound promotion, normal increments etc. also would have been there. We are of the opinion that considering the monthly income that he has to get at the time of retirement, at least Rs.10,000/- can be fixed as the monthly income. If that be so, Rs.1,20,000/- will be the yearly income. After deducting one-third, the loss of dependency will be Rs.80,000/-. Taking 13 as the multiplier, compensation for loss of dependency will be 10,40,000/-. The Tribunal has granted Rs.6,64,040/- for loss of dependency. Hence the additional compensation payable will be 3,75,960/- It is argued that compensation granted under other heads are meagre. But, considering MACA 650/06 -:4:- the total compensation awarded, we are not enhancing the same. The additional amount of Rs.3,75,960/-, over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal, should be deposited by the 3rd respondent with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, appellants 4 and 5, the parents, are allowed to withdraw Rs.20,000/- each . Out of the balance amount, one - third should be released to the first appellant. The balance amount should be deposited in a nationalised bank in the name of appellants 2 and 3, the children, enabling them to withdraw the same at the age of 21 or at the time of marriage, whichever is earlier. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- MACA 650/06 -:5:- kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: