IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1832 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.2119/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------ 1. AMBIKA, W/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN. 2. HARI NARAYANAN, (MINOR), S/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN. 3. RAVINDRANATHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN MENON. 4. INDIRA REGHUNANDANAN, D/O.NARAYANAN MENON. (MINOR 2ND APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN) ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHENKORATH HOUSE, KUNNATH LANE, P.O.KOTTAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. K.SATHEESAN, S/O.BHASKARA MENON, RESIDING AT HONERI HOUSE, POTTAYIL LANE, THRISSUR. 2. KOCHANTHU K.L., S/O.LONAPPAN, RESIDING AT KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.VADOOKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. MACA. NO.1832/2006 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1832 OF 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated 31st October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A man aged 38 sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident on 10.6.2000. After fighting for death for 6 – 8 days, he died on 18.6.2000. His dependents, wife, minor son and mother filed application for compensation. During the pendency of the application, mother also died and legal representatives of the mother were impleaded. The compensation claimed was Rs.11 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,63,816/=. The Tribunal also found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the third respondent insurance company and insurance company was directed to deposit the amount. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The deceased was aged 38. The widow was aged only 34. If the age of the deceased is taken into account, 16 is the apt multiplier as per the second schedule. The Supreme Court in Smt.Supe Dei and others v. M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd. and another (JT MACA.1832/2006 2 2002 Suppl.1) SC 451), Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and another ((2003) 3 SCC 148) and APSRTC v. M.Pentaiah Chary (2007 AIR SCW 5689) held that as far as possible second schedule should be taken as a guideline. The Tribunal has taken only 13 as the multiplier. It is contended that the deceased was an oversear in the Panchayat office. His retirement age is 55. He had 17 years more service and after retirement also he can get a good job being a technically qualified person and considering the increase in expectancy of life, a higher multiplier should be taken especially considering the age of the widow etc. However, since the supreme court held that except in exceptional circumstances, the second schedule should be taken as guideline and since there is no exceptional circumstances in this case, we fix 16 as the multiplier. There is no dispute with regard to the monthly income. Ext.A7 is the salary certificate. Ext.A8 is the statement of pay and allowance. His salary was Rs.6354/-. It is the contention of the appellants that future prospects etc. were not taken into account by the Tribunal. Apart from the promotional prospects, there are periodical wage revisions and yearly increments. If he continued in service, he would have retired getting more than five times salary he was getting at the time MACA.1832/2006 3 of the accident and the retiral benefits also will be at the last drawn wages. The wife and children lost everything and, therefore, a higher income also ought to have been taken into account. But, we note that vagaries of life cannot be predicted. We are not changing the income fixed by the Tribunal. One third was deducted by the Tribunal. Therefore, compensation payable will be Rs.8,13,312/= (4236 x 12 x 16). After deducting the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the balance amount payable will be Rs. 1,52,496/=. It is contended by the appellants that even though they produced medical bills for Rs.50,974/=, only Rs.53,000/= was allowed as medical expenses including transport to hospital and bystander's expense. The deceased sustained very serious injuries. Life saving medicines were given and there are various incidental expenses not covered by the bills and, therefore, the amount awarded is very low. Considering the total amount awarded, we are not enhancing the same. The additional compensation of Rs.1,52,496/= (rounded to Rs.1,52,500/=) should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. On deposit of the amount, the first appellant wife is allowed to withdraw a consolidated amount MACA.1832/2006 4 of Rs.65,000/=. Balance amount should be deposited in the name of the second appellant in a Nationalised Bank enabling her to withdraw the same when she became major or at the time of her marriage, whichever is earlier. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks