IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 350 of 2006()
1. SREEKALA, W/O.LATE P.R.PRADEEP RAJ
... Petitioner
2. JEEVAN RAJ, MINOR, S/O.LATE
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR,
3. RAJARATNAM, PANDARIKKAL HOUSE,
4. RADHA, W/O.RAJARATNAM, PANDARIKKAL
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :05/03/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO.350 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They
claimed compensation for the loss suffered by them consequent to the
death of the deceased who was the husband of the first appellant and father
of the second appellant. The parents of the deceased filed a separate claim
petition. Both the petitions were disposed of earlier by the Tribunal and
the respondents filed two appeals against the common award. The
appellants herein also filed an appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded.
2. Another Division Bench of this Court, as per judgment dated
6.1.2003 in M.F.A. Nos. 500 of 1994, 501 of 1994 and 1081 of 1999,
considered the question in detail and dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellants herein, but allowed the appeals filed by the respondents. We
extract the operative portion of the said common judgment below:
M.A.C.A. NO.350/2006 2
“8. As already mentioned above, the
appropriate multiplier shall be 20. Accordingly,
the compensation payable to the claimants has to
be recalculated applying the multiplier of 20
instead of 26 adopted by the Tribunal.
9. Therefore, M.F.A.Nos.500 and 501 of
1994 are allowed in part and M.F.A. No.1081 of
1999 is dismissed. In all other respects the
award is confirmed.”
3. The matter went back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal followed the
directions of the Division Bench and recalculated the compensation
payable, accepting all the other details which were accepted in the earlier
judgment, but reckoning the multiplier as 20 instead of 26. Accordingly,
the impugned order was passed.
4. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award.
What is their grievance? The short contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is that the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal
is totally incorrect. The Tribunal had not taken into account the future
prospects of the deceased, contends counsel.
5. We are afraid, it is too late in the day for the appellants to
advance such a contention. In the light of the earlier judgment of the
Division Bench in M.F.A. No.500 of 1994 and connected matters, it
M.A.C.A. NO.350/2006 3
cannot be disputed that it was not an open remand, but a closed remand
and the only direction to the Tribunal after such remand was to rework the
compensation adopting 20 instead of 26 as the multiplier. The appeal
preferred by the appellants was specifically dismissed and the award
impugned in those appeals was upheld “in all other respects”.
6. In the light of the very clear finding/direction in the earlier order
of remand, the appellants cannot be heard to advance any grievance
against findings/conclusions confirmed by the earlier judgment of the
Division Bench. It follows that the appeal deserves and can only be
dismissed . We do so. No costs.
(R. BASANT)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
M.A.C.A. NO.350/2006 4
R. BASANT &
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
M.A.C.A. NO.350/2006
JUDGMENT
5th March, 2009