IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 103 of 2003() ------------------------------ OPMV.786/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------- 1. ALAMMA SEBASTIAN, W/O. LATE THOMAS RAJU, TC-13/1623, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SIMI MARY RAJU, D/O. LATE THOMAS RAJU, NOW REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 1ST APPELLANT ALAMMA SEBASTIAN, DO. DO. 3. ANIL RAJU, S/O. LATE THOMAS RAJU, NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 1ST APPELLANT ALAMMA SEBASTIAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.M.J.XAVIER THOMAS SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1,3 & 4: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.S. SELVAM, SELVAM SALT WORKS, 98 PERIERA STREET, TUTICORIN, TAMIL NADU. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, W.G.C. ROAD, TUTICORIN, TAMIL NADU. 3. THANKAMMA THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS, CHAKKUVAYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKADAVU P.O., PAIPPAD, CHENGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA - R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.103 OF 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated 30th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A man aged 46 years died in a motor accident on 10.4.1993. His wife and two minor children approached the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.45,61,000/=. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.9,73,056/=. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. The deceased was a Senior Scientist in Vikram Sarabai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram. His total salary at the time of accident was Rs.9,036/= including basic pay, D.A. etc. Basic pay was Rs.4,950/=. If he was alive, since his date of birth was 26.3.1947, he would have retired only on 31.3.2007, after 14 more years of his death. Ext.A7 was produced to show that if he was continued after 1.7.1998, his basic pay would have been Rs.15,900/= with 22% D.A and if he was alive till the date of retirement, his basic pay itself would have been above Rs.22,000/= and including allowances it would have been above Rs.29,000/=. It is also stated that there would be periodical wage revisions on the basis of pay commission reports, increase in D.A. etc. and if he was alive, his family members would have received superannuation benefits on the basis of the last drawn pay. In General MFA.103/2003 2 Manager, K.S.R.T.C v. Susamma Thomas ((1994) 2 SCC 176), the Supreme Court held that future prospects should be taken into account while calculating compensation. The Supreme Court recently in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben and others ((2008) 4 SCC 162) held that future prospects is an important aspect to be considered while calculating compensation. At the same time, salary at the time of retirement due to post death revision need not be considered. In that case, at the time of death, basic pay of the deceased was Rs.3,295/=. Hon'ble Supreme Court doubled the basic pay and added D.A. to calcualte the loss of dependency. In this case, Tribunal did not take into account future prospects but fixed Rs.9,000/= as the monthly income and Rs.6,000/= as the monthly loss of dependency. Even though we are not taking Rs.29,000/= as monthly income, as contended by the claimants, considering the fact that he was a Senior Scientist and taking into account future prospects, we are of the view that at least Rs.12,000/= should have been taken as the monthly income and Rs.9,000/= as the monthly loss of dependency. 2. Then, the next question is what is the multiplier to be adopted in this case. Tribunal has taken 13 as the multiplier. It is contended that the deceased had 14 years of service left. It is MFA.103/2003 3 submitted that being a Scientist, even after death he could be employed in advisory capacity in may companies even in V.S.S.C. Itself and after retirement he could have served the country and earn more. Considering the increased life expectancy and other factotd, a higher multiplier should be taken. A three member bench of the Supreme Court in Smt.Supe Dei and others v. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another (JT 2002 (Suppl.1), held that even though second schedule is framed for the purpose of calculating compensation under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it serves as a guideline for determination of compensation under section 166 also. In Abati Bezharuch v. Deputy Director General of Geological Survey of India and another ((2003) 3 SCC 148) and recently in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Pentaiah Chary (2007 AIR SCW 5689) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as far as possible second schedule should be taken as the guideline for calculating compensation. When Tribunal has taken second schedule for guidance and fixed the multiplier, we see no ground to change the same. If that be so, compenstion payable for loss of dependency will be Rs.14,04,000= (9000 x 12 x 13). Tribunal has granted Rs.9,40,056/= under that head. So, the additional compensation payable for loss of dependency will be Rs.4,63,944/=. Rs.10,000/= was awarded for loss of consortium and another Rs.10,000/= for loss MFA.103/2003 4 of love and affection, but, it is contended that no amount was awarded for loss of love and care to the minor children. It is further contended that compensation awarded for pain and suffering etc. are very low. However, considering the total amount of compensation awarded, we are not enhancing the compensation granted under other heads. The additional amount of Rs.4,63,944/- rounded to Rs.4,64,000/= should be deposited by the second respondent insurance company with 7% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. On deposit of the amount, appellants are allowed to withdraw the same. Out of the above amount, Rs.1,00,000/= should be given to the mother of the deceased. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks