IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 932 of 2011(C) ---------------------- OPMV.245/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT : 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TALIPARAMBA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. RETHI.K., W/O.LATE RAJAN, VISHNUJA NIVAS, KARA PERAVOOR.P.O., KEEZHALLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 673. 2. SIVARAJ.A., S/O.LATE RAJAN,(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT RETHI.K., VISHNUJA NIVAS, KARA PERAVOOR.P.O., KEEZHALLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 673. 3. ROHINI.A., W/O.LATE DAMODARAN, VISHNUJA NIVAS, KARA PERAVOOR.P.O., KEEZHALLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.670 673. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.932 of 2011-C ***************************** Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The insurer is the appellant. Quantum is the only dispute. Claimants are the wife, daughters and mother of the deceased. The wife was aged 31 years at the time of the claim. The deceased was a school teacher in Government service earning an income of Rs.8,550/- on the date of the accident. The Tribunal initially directed payment of an amount of Rs.15,67,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below: i) Transportation expenses : Rs. 1,000.00 ii) Loss of dependency income: Rs.15,36,000.00 iii) Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000.00 iv) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000.00 v) Funeral expenses : Rs.. 5,000.00 ------------------------ Total : Rs.15,67,000.00 ========== M.A.C.A No.932 of 2011-C 2 2. On an application for review, the Tribunal considered the matter afresh and reduced the quantum of compensation to Rs.13,51,000/-. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award even now. 3. What is the grievance? Called upon to explain the specific and precise nature of the challenge, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant now assails the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal erred in reckoning 15 as the multiplier. Going by Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], only 14 should have been reckoned as the multiplier, contends the learned counsel. The next limb of the contention is that the Tribunal erred in taking 11,000 as the multiplicand applicable for all the 15 years. Giving due credit to the possible increase in prospects, Rs.11,105/- was reckoned by the Tribunal as the monthly income. That must be taken into consideration. That was rounded off to Rs.11,000/- per mensem. The argument advanced is that the deceased, a person aged 42 years, could have aspired to continue in service only till he attains the age of 55 years, which is the present age of retirement. Therefore for the first 13 years, multiplier, though could be taken at Rs.11,000, for the subsequent period M.A.C.A No.932 of 2011-C 3 multiplicand should have been taken only at a lesser figure. This in short is the contention. 4. Computation of compensation is an art and not a science of exactitude . We must remember this always when we are called upon to invoke and exercise our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Whether 15 should be taken or 14 should be taken is the first dispute. Whether Rs.11,000/- which is the rounded off figure was justifiably taken for the last two years is the next controversy. In any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree that the inexactitude or the inadequacy is such that our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 can or deserves to be invoked. Sarla Verma (supra) cannot be reckoned as straight jacket formula in the matter of multiplier and multiplicand. The primary mandate to make just and reasonable compensation cannot be forgotten. We take note that the deceased had a stable and settled employment. The age of retirement now may be 55 years. It is only reasonable to assume that the same may not have continued as the age of retirement by the time the deceased reached the time for superannuation. In any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. M.A.C.A No.932 of 2011-C 4 5. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/