IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1039 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1313/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS 1,2,3,5 AND 6: --------------------------------------------------- 1. R.MEENAKSHY, WIFE OF A.R.PARAMESWARAN, RESIDING AT 9/372, SHANMUGHA PRIYA, CORNER STREET, KODUVAYUR, CHITTUR, PALGHAT. 2. A.P. APARNA, D/O. -DO-, MINOR 10 YEARS. 3. A.P.KARTHIKA OF -DO- MINOR AGED 8 YEARS. 4. K.KAMALAM, WIFE OF R.P.RAMAKRISHNA IYER OF -DO- -DO-. 5. R.P. BHAGYALEKSHMI AMMAL, WIFE OF LATE VENKITASUBRAMONIAN OF -DO- -DO-, MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. N.SENTHILKUMAR, SON OF NATARAJAN, C-91, 7TH CROSS THILLAI NAGAR, TRICHY-1B, TAMILNADU. 2. J.SREEDEVI, WIFE OF P.JAYAGOPA, C-107, 11TH CROSS, THILLAI NAGAR, TRICHY-18, TAMILNADU. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GANESH COMPLEX - 8A, LAWSONS ROAD, CONTONMENT, TRICHY-1, TAMILNADU. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1039 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the death of husband of the first appellant who is the father of appellants 2 and 3, remaining appellants being mother and aunt of the deceased who were also depending on the deceased for livelihood. In the claim petition before the Tribunal, MACT found the offending vehicle liable and compensation was ordered to be paid by the insurer of that vehicle. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. The first ground raised by the appellants is that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.10,000/- and net loss of dependency worked out based on a monthly income of Rs.5,250/- is untenable. Counsel for the appellants produced documents which show that the income of Government College Teaching Staff have been increased based on UGC recommendation and the deceased got a pay revision with 2 retrospective effect from January 1996 and his pay as on date of death was Rs.15,000/-. We do not find any ground to reject this contention because deceased was a Senior Lecturer in a Government College and the claim of salary is correct and proved by evidence. We, therefore, adopt his monthly income as Rs.15,000/- and after reducing one third towards personal expenses, net loss of dependency has to be worked out based on a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. Counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that first appellant is entitled to a family pension of Rs.3,050/- which goes to reduce loss of dependency. We find force in this contention because but for the death of the husband, first appellant would not have been entitled to family pension she is getting. Therefore, while taking the net loss of dependency, this amount has to be reduced. Another contention raised by counsel for the Insurance Company is that even though multiplier to be applied is 15, deceased would have retired from Government service at the age of 55 or in other words, he had only 13 years of service as on date of death. However, counsel for the appellants raised a contention that if multiplier is reduced limiting it to the year of retirement, appellants are 3 entitled to compensation for loss of dependency subsequent to retirement of the deceased as the deceased being a Professor in Mathematics would have been able to earn substantial amount in the normal course even after retirement. We are completely in agreement with this contention because an experienced Mathematics Professor will be able to earn very good income for several years after normal retirement at the age of 55. Therefore, we do not find any ground to reduce the multiplier on this ground. Adopting the multiplicant as Rs.6,500/- after reducing family pension and by applying the above multiplier, appellants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,70,000/- for loss of dependency as against Rs.9,45,000/- granted by the MACT. 3. So far as the compensation under other heads are concerned, we find force in the contention of the appellants that loss of consortium granted to the first appellant is low. Further, MACT was not justified in not granting any compensation for loss of love and affection to the children of the deceased who are only of very tender age. Similarly, the deceased leaves behind mother and an aunt who are living with him 4 and therefore, compensation is due to atleast the mother for loss of love and affection. However, we feel an additional lumpsum compensation to all the appellants under the above heads will serve the ends of justice. We, therefore, grant an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- under all the above heads with direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the additional compensation granted by us with interest at 7.5 p.a. from date of application till date of payment. Since the present interest rates are quite high, MACT will authorise deposit of the entire additional compensation in any Nationalised Bank on a long term basis in the name of the first appellant. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms