IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 740 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.902/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS : PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. MANJU, W/O.LATE JAYAN, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, MELOOR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MINOR AKSHAY JAYAN, S/O.LATE JAYAN, -DO-.-DO-. 3. DEVAKY SANKARAN, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, MELOOR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. MINOR AKSHAY REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND GUARDIAN MANJU THE 1ST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS; --------------------------- 1. GURUDIP SINGH SIDHU, S/O.BEKAM SINGH, GOLGHATT ROAD, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND. 2. RAJEENDHAR SINGH, S/O.BALVINDHAR SINGH, LALTHUNGALA STREET, DOOR NO.B-2772, LUDHIYANA DISTRICT, PUNJAB. 3. THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DIMAPUR, NAGALAND. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.740 of 2007-C ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The claimants are the appellants. The respondent/insurance company who has been made entirely liable has been served. We do not think it necessary to wait for service on the other respondents now. 2. Claimants are the wife, mother and a minor child of the deceased, a 28 years old young man, who was employed as an L.I.C agent. His monthly income was claimed to be Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the same as Rs.3,600/-. Against a total claim of Rs.7 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,25,600/- as per the details given in para.14 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Heads of award Amount awarded 1 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000.00 2 Loss of estate Rs. 2,500.00 3 Transportation charges Rs. 1,000.00 4 Loss of consortium Rs.12,000.00 5 Pain and suffering Rs. 7,500.00 6 Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000.00 M.A.C.A No.740 of 2007-C 2 Sl.No. Heads of award Amount awarded 7 Loss of dependency Rs.4,89,600.00 (3600 X 12 X 2/3 X 17) Total Rs.5,25,600.00 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that having accepted the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,600/-, the Tribunal erred grossly in not making adequate provision for the future improvement of prospects in employment of the 28 year old deceased. This has rendered the award unjust and unreasonable, contends the learned counsel. The learned counsel relies on the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] to impress upon the Court the necessity to provide for future increase in earnings. The learned counsel for the appellants particularly relies on the observations in para.24 of Sarla Verma (supra) to contend that 50% of the actual salary must be taken into reckoning to ensure the interests of justice. 4. We find merit in that contention. However, we note M.A.C.A No.740 of 2007-C 3 that the deceased was a self employed person and not a person having any permanent job as such. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that instead of the amount of Rs.3,600/- taken into reckoning by the Tribunal, Rs.4,750/- can be accepted as the multiplicand. 5. We are satisfied that the amounts awarded under all other heads are fair, just and reasonable and do not warrant appellate interference. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,56,400/- as shown below in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Loss of dependency : Rs.1,56,400.00 [4750X12X2/3X17 = 6,46,000 minus 4,89,600] ......................... Total : Rs.1,56,400.00 ========= [ 7. The learned counsel for the appellants then contends that the Tribunal has not awarded interest in a just and reasonable manner. Only 6% interest has been awarded, points out the learned counsel for the appellants. We agree with the M.A.C.A No.740 of 2007-C 4 learned counsel that interest ought to have been awarded at a higher rate. We hold that the appellants are entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum. 8. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellants are found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,56,400/- (Rupees One lakh fifty six thousand and four hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We direct that interest be paid on the entire amount of compensation from the date of petition to the date of realisation @ 7.5% per annum; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/