IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1136 of 2005(D)
1. SHAKEELA, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. FEMINA MOL, (MINOR),
3. SHAMEERA, (MINOR),
4. IBRAHIM, AGED 74 YEARS,
Vs
1. E.P.VARKEY, S/O.POULOSE,
... Respondent
2. BAIJU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :20/08/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & Thomas P. Joseph, JJ.
————————————–
M.A.C.A. No.1136 of 2005
—————————————
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
A 32 year old young man sustained fatal injuries in an accident
on 2.6.2000. His wife aged 27 and two minor daughters and minor son
applied for compensation claiming 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, but, total compensation
awarded was only Rs.5,65,348/-. The only dispute is regarding the quantum
of compensation. The deceased was aged 32 at the time of accident. Taking
guidance from the second schedule, 17 was taken as the multiplier. Even
though it is argued that due to increase in the interest rates and increase in
the life expectancy of an average citizen, a higher multiplier should be taken,
we are of the view that no enhancement is necessary in the multiplier fixed
by the Tribunal. According to the claimants, monthly income of the deceased
was Rs.5,600/-. The Tribunal took only Rs.3,618/- as the monthly income.
He was a qualified Fitter engaged by a registered contractor of Cochin
Refineries Limited. Ext.A7 is the register of wages-cum-muster roll for the
period 1.4.2000 to 30.4.2000. There, the monthly income is shown as
Rs.5,603/-. Ext.A8 is the muster roll of the subsequent period with effect from
M.A.C.A.No. 1136/2005 2
1.5.2000 to 31.5.2000. That shows that he received only Rs.3,618/- as the
monthly income during the just previous month of the accident. It is
contended that in the previous month, he received a lesser sum because of
his absence. But, his average monthly income is more than Rs.5,000/- and
the Tribunal went wrong in taking a reduced income. It is also submitted that
being a qualified person, better prospects in life also would have been there,
but, no amount was granted for future prospects. Considering the wages in
Exts.A7 and A8, we are of the opinion that at least Rs.4,000/- ought to have
been taken as the monthly income. If Rs.4,000/- is taken as the monthly
income, Rs.48,000/- will the annual income. After deducting one-third for
personal expenses, yearly loss of dependency will be Rs.32,000/- and by
applying the multiplier of 17, compensation for loss of dependency will be
Rs.5,44,000/-. The Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.4,92,048/-
rounded to Rs.4,92,048 and balance payable will be Rs.51,952/- rounded to
Rs.52,000/-. It is argued that compensation awarded for loss of consortium
was very meagre. Only Rs.15,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium for
three minor children and only Rs.20,000/- was awarded for loss of love and
affection which is very meagre. But, considering the total amount awarded,
we are not enhancing the amount granted under other heads. Therefore, the
claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.52,000/- over and above
the amount decreed by the Tribunal. The above amount of Rs.52,000/-
should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5%
M.A.C.A.No. 1136/2005 3
interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the above
amount, one-third of the amount is allowed to withdrawn by the first appellant
and balance should be deposited in a nationalised bank enabling the second
and third appellants daughters to withdraw the same in equal proportion at
the age of 21 or at the time of their marriage whichever is earlier.
The appeal is partly allowed.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
Thomas P. Joseph
Judge
vaa
M.A.C.A.No. 1136/2005 4
J.B. KOSHY
AND
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ.
————————————-
M.A.C.A. No.1136/2005
————————————-
Judgment
Dated:20th August, 2008