IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.NO. 418 OF 2006() ------------------------------------- OPMV.975/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/APPLICANT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.SANTHAMMA, AGED 43, W/O.DECEASED SREEKANTAN NAIR, T.C.20/2508, OPP: GOVT. GIRL'S HIGH SCHOOL, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002 2. SOUMYA S.(MINOR), D/O.T.SANTHAMMA, RESIDING AT DO.DO. 3. ANAND S. NAIR(MINOR), S/O.T.SANTHAMMA, RESIDING DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.SANIL KUMAR, S/O.VELAPPAN NAIR, SREELALITHAM, HOUSE NO.4/1048, BAPUJI NAGAR, PONGUMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, SR. MARY VILLA, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL FOR R1 SRI.S.VENUGOPAL FOR R1 SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.418 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Koshy, J. Husband of the first appellant died in a motor accident. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured with the second respondent insurance company. However, against a claim of Rs.14,00,000/-, only a sum of Rs.4,94,560/- was granted. Only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. According to the appellants-claimants, deceased was aged 48 at the time of the accident. But since the postmortem report shows that deceased was aged 50, Tribunal took 50 as the age of the deceased which is supported by the extract of the SSLC Book. Tribunal fixed 11 as the multiplier taking guidelines from the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Deceased was a mechanic in the KSRTC. Since the employee of KSRTC has to retire at the age of 55, Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency on two methods; one, for five years and the other, for six years. We are of the opinion that such a calculation is not necessary because being employed in a public sector undertaking, the deceased was entitled to get periodical wage M.A.C.A. No.418 of 2006 -: 2 :- revision apart from yearly increment and time bound promotions. If the deceased continued in the employment, his salary would have been doubled at the time of his retirement. The deceased would have got retirement benefits on the basis of the last drawn salary also. But the Tribunal has taken into account only his salary at the time of the accident and no amount was taken for future prospects. Being a mechanic the deceased would have earned money from other employments after his retirement. Therefore a higher monthly income should have been fixed by the Tribunal. Exhibit A6 is the salary certificate which shows that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs.8,849/-. The Certificate also shows that out of Rs.8,849/-, Rs.7,020/- is basic the pay, Rs.1,544 is DA, Rs.270 is HRA and Rs.15/- is washing allowance. Tribunal has taken Rs.8,564/- as the monthly income. Taking into account the fact that the deceased will retire at the age of 55 years and the further fact that his retirement benefits will be more considering his last drawn salary and since he was an experienced mechanic he would have earned money after retirement, for the purpose of calculation of compensation we fix Rs.7,500/- as the monthly income. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, Rs.5,000/- can be taken as the monthly contribution. Therefore compensation payable will be Rs.6,60,000/-. M.A.C.A. No.418 of 2006 -: 3 :- From that amount, Rs.4,38,560/- has to be deducted being the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the balance will be Rs.2,21,440/-. There is a calculation mistake of Rs.15,000/- committed by the Tribunal while adding the total amount. That also has to be deducted. So the additional compensation payable to the appellants will be Rs.2,06,440/-, over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The second respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the said amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. On such deposit, the first appellant is permitted to withdraw 1/3rd. The balance amount shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in a Nationalised Bank in the name of appellants 2 and 3 enabling them to withdraw the same at the time of their marriage or when they attain 21 years, whichever is earlier. Appeal is allowed in part. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv