IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 849 of 2006()
1. ANNIAMMA MATHEW, W/O. ABRAHAM MATHEW,
... Petitioner
2. ANITHA RANI MATHEW,
3. ANILA MATHEW, D/O. DO. DO.
4. ANISH MATHEW, S/O. DO. DO.
Vs
1. ALICHEN VARGHESE, S/O. KUNJUNJU KUTTY,
... Respondent
2. KOCHUMON JACOB, S/O. M.V. CHACKO,
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURACE CO.LTD.,
4. M.V. CHACKO, MOOZHIPPARA HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :08/01/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
M.A.C.A No.849 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January 2010
J U D G M E N T
Basant,J
Claimants are the appellants. They are the wife, two major
daughters and a minor son of the deceased. The deceased suffered
injuries and succumbed to such injuries in a motor accident which
occurred on 20/02/2001.
2. The tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,38,804/- as
compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the
date of the petition. Of this, an amount of Rs.3,12,000/- was
directed to be paid by way of compensation for loss of dependency.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
quantum of compensation awarded is not just and reasonable.
What are the grounds? The learned counsel for the appellants
raises two specific grounds. The learned counsel for the appellants
submits that there was unimpeachable evidence to show that the
deceased had two more months for retirement on superannuation
from Government service. And that, on such superannuation, he
was entitled to a basic pension of Rs.3,975/-. Ext.A13 is the said
certificate. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that
the Tribunal, most unreasonably and without any jurisdiction,
M.A.C.A No.849/09 2
reckoned the multiplicand at Rs.3,000/-. There was no discernible
reason for reducing that small amount of Rs.3,975/- further to
Rs.3,000/-.
4. We find merit in this contention. In any view of the
matter, the pension for the deceased could only have been greater
than Rs.3,975/-. Possible increase in future and possible dearness
allowance which are to be added on to the basic pension have not
been taken into reckoning. Of course, there is no specific evidence
on that aspect. At any rate, we agree unreservedly with the
learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification to
reduce the amount of Rs.3,975/- payable as monthly basic pension
to Rs.3,000/- while ascertaining the multiplicand. The learned
counsel for the insurer submits that this deduction is justified as
the family would be entitled for family pension in the event of death
of the deceased. We are unable to agree that this can be a valid
reason to scale down the actual basic pension which the deceased
would have been entitled to receive while ascertaining the
multiplicand.
5. The learned counsel for the insurer further contends
that the tribunal has wrongly reckoned 13 to be the multiplier
whereas under the latest decision summarising the law on the
question, that is Sarla Verma v. D.T.C [(2009)6 SCC 121], it has
M.A.C.A No.849/09 3
been held unambiguously that 11 must be reckoned as the
multiplier. The learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute
the multiplier as per Sarla (Supra).
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that if
Sarla (Supra) were followed in letter and spirit, only 1/4th of the
pension amount can be deducted by way of personal expenses of
the deceased and the tribunal should not have deducted 1/3rd .
7. We have been taken through the relevant portions of
Sarla (Supra). Respondents 2 and 3 are shown to be adult major
daughters though they are not married. Sufficient materials to
indicate that they are totally depending on the deceased is not
made available. At any rate, we are not satisfied that the normal
and usual deduction of 1/3rd need not be further reduced in the
facts and circumstances of the case. It follows that the appellant
would be entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,800/- under this
head of loss of dependency that is Rs.3,975/- x 2/3 x 12 x 11 i.e.
Rs.3,49,800/- minus Rs.3,12,000/- [Rs.3,000/- x 2/3 x 12 x 13). The
challenge on this first ground must hence succeed to the above
extent.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants secondly relies on
the decision in Dharampal v. U.P State Road Transport
Corporation [2008(2)KLT 691 (SC)] to contend that the rate of
M.A.C.A No.849/09 4
interest awarded at 6% p.a is grossly inadequate. We find force in
that submission. We are satisfied that the challenge on this ground
is also bound to succeed.
9. In the result,
a) This appeal is allowed.
b) The impugned award is modified. It is found that the
appellants are entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,800/- (Rupees
thirty seven thousand and eight hundred only) as compensation
under the head of loss of dependency.
c) It is further directed that the appellants shall be entitled
to interest on the entire amount awarded at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of the claim to the date of payment. Costs as directed by
the tribunal shall also be payable.
d) We however direct that no interest shall be payable for a
period of one year for the enhanced amount which is the period of
delay in filing this appeal.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr
M.A.C.A No.849/09 5
M.A.C.A No.849/09 6
M.A.C.A No.849/09 7
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
29/07/2009