IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 494 of 2009()
1. P.RUGMINI, W/O.LATE RAVEENDRANATH K.,
... Petitioner
2. REKHA, D/O.LATE RAVEENDRANATH K.,
3. RESHMI, D/O.LATE RAVEENDRANATH K.,
4. KUNHILAKSHMI AMMA,
Vs
1. K.V.HARI, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AROCHANA
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :25/02/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO.494 OF 2009
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants before us. They
are the wife, two major children and mother of the deceased. The wife is
aged 48 years, the female children are aged 25 years and 23 years and the
mother is aged 77 years. They claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as
compensation for the death of the husband of the first appellant, father of
appellants 2 and 3 and son of the fourth appellant. The deceased was
employed as Cashier-cum-Clerk of Indian Bank, Calicut. He was drawing
a monthly income of Rs.14,323.45 at the time of his death. He had
suffered injuries and succumbed to the same four days after the accident.
Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. No other evidence was
adduced.
2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant
inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to an amount
M..A.C.A. NO.494/2009 2
of Rs.9,71,200/- as compensation as per the details shown in paragraph 7
of the award:
i. Transport to the hospital :Rs. 1,000/-
ii. Funeral expenses :Rs. 2,000/-
iii. Pain and suffering :Rs. 9,000/-
iv. Loss to estate :Rs. 2,500/-
v. Loss of consortium :Rs. 5,000/-
vi. Loss of love and affection :Rs. 5,000/-
vii. Loss of dependency
Upto 58 years(14323x12x2x8/3) :Rs.9,16,672/-
viii After 58 years(15000x2x3/3) :Rs. 30,000/-
------------------
Total :Rs.9,71,172/-
Rounded to :Rs.9,71,200/-
------------------
3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned award.
What is the grievance? Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the amount awarded under the heads pain and suffering, loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection are not adequate. It is
strenuously contended that the Tribunal erred in reckoning the multiplier
as 8 alone and in computing the compensation with the multiplicand at
Rs.14,323 for eight years only. For the remaining three years, it is argued
M..A.C.A. NO.494/2009 3
that only a lower amount of Rs.15,000/- has been reckoned as the
multiplicand. This is unjust, contends counsel.
4. The deceased was aged 51 years at the time of his death. The
multiplier applicable, going by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles
Act, is 11. The Tribunal found that the deceased would have continued in
the same employment for a period of eight years and would have retired
on superannuation at the end of eight years. Therefore, the Tribunal
adopted his present salary of Rs.14,323/- as the multiplicand for a period
of eight years and thereafter taking into account the post retirement
prospects in employment, the Tribunal awarded compensation for the
remaining three years reckoning the multiplicand at Rs.15,000/-. It is
contended that the Tribunal ought to have quantified the compensation for
the entire period of 11 years taking Rs.14,323/- as the multiplicand and, at
any rate the multiplicand reckoned at Rs.15,000/- for the last three years is
not justified. We are unable to agree. We note that the entire present
salary has been reckoned as multiplicand for the period during which the
deceased would have continued in employment. The approach made by
the Tribunal is fair, reasonable and just. We are persuaded to agree that
no higher amount is liable to be awarded under the head loss of
dependency. Under the other heads shown above also, the appellants have
M..A.C.A. NO.494/2009 4
been reasonably compensated and we are not persuaded to agree that any
higher amount is liable to be paid under those heads.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
M..A.C.A. NO.494/2009 5
R. BASANT &
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
M.A.C.A. NO.494/2009
JUDGMENT
25th February, 2009
M..A.C.A. NO.494/2009 6