IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1039 of 2005()
1. R.MEENAKSHY, WIFE OF A.R.PARAMESWARAN,
... Petitioner
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
5. R.P. BHAGYALEKSHMI AMMAL,
Vs
1. N.SENTHILKUMAR, SON OF NATARAJAN,
... Respondent
2. J.SREEDEVI, WIFE OF P.JAYAGOPA,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :11/11/2008
O R D E R
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