IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 201 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.2313/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 10: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.SARADA, AGED 38 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE T.C.RADHAKRISHNAN. 2. MIDHUN KRISHNA, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), SON OF LATE T.C. RADHAKRISHNAN. 3. ARUN KRISHNA (MINOR), AGED 16 YEARS, SON OF LATE T.C.RADHAKRISHNAN. 4. KARTHIAYANI, AGED 72 YEARS, MOTHER OF LATE T.C.RADHAKRISHNAN. 5. SUKUMARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, SON OF T.K.CHATHUKUTTY. 6. SADASIVAN, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF T.K.CHATHUKUTTY. 7. MADHU, AGED 41 YEARS, SON OF T.K.CHATHUKUTTY. 8. LATHA, AGED 39 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF T.K.CHATHUKUTTY. 9. PRADEEP, AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF T.K.CHATHUKUTTY. ALL APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT 20/291, THOTTUVARAMBATH VEEDU,NAMBIAPURAM,PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. MINORS APLNTS.2&3 REP.BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER 1ST CLAIMANT, K.K.SARADA. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.NITHYA.K. MACA No.201/2003 2 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SMT.R.SAROJA, W/O.V.T.RAJAKAM NADAR, EAST FORT, TRICHUR. 2. SAIDU, THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, THALAPPILLY, TRICHUR DIST. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., ROUND NORTH, TRISSUR-1. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.201 of 2003 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Thomas P.Joseph, J. Husband of the first appellant, a Police Constable by profession died in a motor accident that occurred on 14.6.1996. He was riding a motor cycle. Lorry driven by the second respondent hit the motor cycle. He suffered serious injuries, underwent hospitalization and treatment and succumbed to the injuries on 20.6.1996. Appellants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. Appellants 4 and 5 are his parents. Appellants claimed Rs.7,62,750/- as compensation alleging that accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the second respondent. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the second respondent and awarded Rs.3,01,500/- as compensation. Appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and have come up in appeal. 2. Heard counsel for the appellants and the contesting respondent. 3. Point for consideration is whether appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation? 4. Perused the relevant records. 5. The Point. It is not disputed that the deceased was a Police Constable during MACA No.201/2003 2 the relevant time. Ext.A9 is his service particulars. Though appellants claimed that deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident, Tribunal found from Ext.A9 that he was aged 39 years. Based on that, multiplier of ‘16’ was adopted which we find no reason to interfere. 6. From Ext.A9, service particulars Tribunal found that the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs.2,868/-. However, the monthly earnings was fixed at Rs.2,000/- and deducting one third for personal expenses, contribution to the appellants was found to be Rs.1,334/- which was rounded at Rs.1,335/- and accordingly, Rs.2,56,320/- was awarded as compensation for loss of dependency and contribution. Learned counsel for appellants contended that the income fixed by the Tribunal is low. According to the learned counsel, Tribunal did not take into account the possibility of promotion for the deceased, pay revisions and increments which would also be taken into account while fixing the monthly income. According to learned counsel, had not the deceased met with the accident and died at the age of 39 years, his salary at the time of retirement would have been atleast ten times the present salary and he would have been eligible for pension according to the last drawn salary at the time of retirement. 7. We have given an anxious consideration of the arguments advanced by the counsel on both sides. Since the deceased was a Police Constable and aged 39 years, there was every possibility of his getting periodical promotions and pay revisions and enhancement of increments even in his post as Police Constable. In these circumstances, while fixing the MACA No.201/2003 3 monthly income for the purpose of ascertaining the contribution to the family, weight has to be given to such future prospects. In this case, though Ext.A9 stated the gross salary of the deceased as Rs.2,868/- Tribunal fixed Rs.2,000/- as monthly earning which, in the facts and circumstances we are unable to uphold. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case which we have stated above, we are of the opinion that Rs.3,500/- should have been fixed as the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of assessment of compensation for loss of dependency and contribution. Less one third for personal expenses, the loss of dependency and contribution to the family per annum came to Rs.28,000/-. Taking multiplier of ‘16’, compensation payable for loss of dependency and contribution comes to Rs.4,48,000/- and less the sum of Rs.2,56,320/- already awarded by the Tribunal, additional compensation payable to the appellants on that count comes to Rs.1,91,680/-. We allow the appellants to realize the said amount. 8. Though it is contended by the learned counsel that compensation awarded on other counts are also low, on going through the award, hearing the submission of counsel on both sides and also taking into account the total amount which the appellants are found entitled, we are not inclined to entertain that contention. Additional compensation payable to the appellants is Rs.1,91,680/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellants are allowed to realize MACA No.201/2003 4 Rs.1,91,680/- (Rupees One lakh ninetyone thousand six hundred and eighty only) by way of additional compensation with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till realization from respondents 1 to 3, jointly and severally. Third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit that amount in the Tribunal. Appellants shall share the amount in the proportion ordered by the Tribunal and on such deposit, appellants are allowed to withdraw the same. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks MACA No.201/2003 5 J.Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ. M.A.C.A.No.201 of 2003 Judgment 2nd December, 2008