IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 806 of 2002(B)
1. DEVI AMMA, W/O. SUKUMARAN
... Petitioner
2. SMITHA K.S. D/O. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING
3. HAREESH K.S., S/O. SUKUMARAN,
4. MANJUSHA, D/O. SUKUMARAN, (MINOR)
5. NARAYANI AMMA, W/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR,
6. PADMANABHAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR,
Vs
1. SAVITHA VIJAYAN, W/O. K.P. VIJAYAN,
... Respondent
2. SAJEEVAN, S/O. VASU ALIAS BHASKARAN,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VALSALAN
For Respondent :SMT.K.C.BEENA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :25/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
————————————–
M.F.A. No. 806 of 2002
—————————————
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
A 52 year old man sustained fatal injuries in an accident
on 26.9.2007. His legal representatives including his wife, three
children and parents filed application for compensation claiming an
amount of Rupees Ten lakhs. The tribunal found that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured
by the third respondent insurance company. The first respondent
driver of the above vehicle was found to be negligent. The second
respondent owner of the vehicle was vicariously liable and third
respondent being the insurer was liable to indemnify the insured.
Hence, third respondent was directed to deposit the amount of
Rs.4,31,724/-. The only dispute raised in this appeal is the quantum
of compensation.
2. The deceased was aged 52. Therefore, taking
guidance from the second schedule, apt multiplier is 11. The
tribunal has taken 11 as the multiplier. We see no ground to
interfere in the same. The salary certificate shows that his monthly
M.F.A.No.806/2002 2
salary was Rs.8,818/-. He was employed as an Overseer in the
Kerala State Electricity Board. The tribunal considered the
deductions from the salary, namely, the amount to be paid to co-
operative society for items purchased and house building loan etc.
They are all for the benefit of the family. But, the tribunal took
Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income and one-third was deducted for
calculating compensation. We are of the opinion that the above
calculation is totally incorrect. His monthly salary was Rs.8,818/-.
After deducting tax and allowances payable with regard to the duty,
his monthly income was Rs.8,100/-. Deducting one-third, the
monthly multiplicand should be Rs.5,400/-. Claimant has got a case
that he had three more years of service. There is likelihood of
promotion, yearly increment, benefit of wage revision etc., but, at
the same time, he will have to retire at the age 55 and he will not
get full wages thereafter. But, according to the claimants, they will
be entitled to retiral benefits like gratuity etc. considering the full
length of service and last drawn salary. That itself will be a huge
sum. It is also contended that being a technical employee, an
Overseer employed in the Electricity Board, will be able to get a
better employment after retirement also. Vagaries of life cannot be
predicted. We have also seen that after deducting one-third for
M.F.A.No.806/2002 3
personal expenses from the salary received, balance amount will be
Rs.5,400/=. It is true that in the usual course, taking increments
and hike in salary etc. he would have got a higher amount as last
drawn salary at the time of retirement. His gratuity and other retiral
benefits also will be calculated on the basis of the length of service
and last drawn salary and he may get a job also after retirement. At
the same time, he will have to retire after three years and he will
not get salary from the Electricity Board. Taking all these things
into account, we take only Rs.4,000/- as the multiplicand instead of
Rs.5,400/-. If that be so, compensation payable will be Rs.4000 x 12
x 11 = Rs.5,28,000/-.
The tribunal has granted only Rs.4,00,224/- for loss of dependency.
Therefore, claimants are entitled to an additional amount of
Rs.1,27,776/-.
3. During the course of appeal proceedings, fifth
appellant mother died and her legal representatives were
impleaded.
4. The additional amount of Rs.1,27,776/- should be
deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7%
interest from the date of application till its deposit over and above
the decreed amount by the tribunal. On deposit of the amount,
M.F.A.No.806/2002 4
sixth appellant father of the deceased is allowed to withdraw
Rs.20,000/- and out of the balance one-third is allowed to be
withdrawn by the wife and the balance should be allowed to be
withdrawn by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th appellants in equal proportion.
Appeal allowed partly.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
P.N.Ravindran
Judge
vaa
M.F.A.No.806/2002 5
J.B. KOSHY
AND
P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ.
————————————-
M.F.A. No. 806 of 2002
————————————-
Judgment
Dated:26th June, 2008