IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 682 of 2005()
1. SMT.VALSALA, WIDOW OF RAJAN.
... Petitioner
2. RAKEESH(MINOR), S/O.LATE RAJAN,
3. RAHUL (MINOR), S/O.LATE RAJAN.
4. ROSHAN (MINOR), S/O.LATE RAJAN.
5. SMT. KARTHAYANI, WIDOW OF KARAPPAN,
Vs
1. K.K.BABU, S/O.KUNJUNNI, RESIDING AT
... Respondent
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
For Respondent :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :25/08/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH &
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO. 682 OF 2005
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th August, 2009
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Appellants are the widow, three minor children and the
mother of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the quantum, the
appellants are before us.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance
Company. In view of the fact that insurance is admitted and the
Appeal relates to the quantum, we are not issuing notice to the
first respondent.
3. This is a case where the deceased was 39 years of age at
the time of accident. He was employed in the Military till 1998.
According to the claimants, he was thereafter engaged as a
driver and was earning Rs.6,000/= as monthly income.
MACA.NO.682/05 2
4. The complaint in this Appeal essentially relates to the
calculation of the dependency compensation. The tribunal has
taken the annual income at Rs.30,000/=. This is by taking the
income as a driver at Rs.2,500/= per month. A multiplier of 16
was applied and thereafter 1/3rd was de4ducted towards own
expenses and a sum of Rs.3,20,000/= is arrived at. Learned
counsel for the appellants would contend firstly that the tribunal
has erred in fixing the income of the deceased as a driver at
Rs.2,500/=. The accident took place on 24.9.2000. Secondly,
he contends that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the
amount of pension the deceased was entitled to from the Army.
He would point out that the deceased would have got Rs.720/=
as pension. He would also contend that it is settled law that any
amount received by way of family pension cannot be deducted
from pension. It is his case that if the person who was involved
in the accident continued to live, he would have continued to
draw the pension and his death has resulted in the income being
MACA.NO.682/05 3
lost and, therefore, this ought to have been considered by the
tribunal while computing the income by way of dependency for
the appellants. The tribunal has deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th.
He lastly contends that the tribunal ought to have granted higher
rate of interest than six per cent. Learned counsel for the
Insurance Company supported the award.
5. The first question to be considered is what is to be
taken as the income. The deceased was 39 years of age. He was
a qualified driver. Having regard to the date of the accident, we
do not think that there is any further scope for enhancement.
But, we are inclined to accept the case of the appellant that the
amount of pension being received by the deceased should also
have been reckoned for arriving at the income for calculating
dependency compensation. We take Rs.720/= as the monthly
pension which the deceased was receiving at the time of his
death. Though there is reference to subsequent revisions, we
have to consider the state of affairs as on the date of the death.
MACA.NO.682/05 4
In view of the fact that there are four dependents, even if we
exclude the mother, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court
in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. (JT 2009 (6) SC 495), the deduction towards personal
expenses should have been confined to 1/4th and not 1/3rd. Thus,
after taking the income at Rs.3,200/= and deducting 1/4th and
applying the multiplier of 16, the appellants would be entitled to
a sum of Rs.4,60,800/=. After deducting the amount of
Rs.3,20,000/= already awarded by the tribunal, the appellants
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,40,800/= more. We are also
inclined to accept the contention of the appellants that the
tribunal should have awarded interest at a higher rate. We fix
the interest at 7.5 per cent on the amount already awarded.
Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are
allowed to realise Rs.1,40,800/= more with interest at 7.5 per
cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from
the second respondent. The appellants are also allowed to
realise interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the
MACA.NO.682/05 5
date of realisation on the amount already awarded, from the
second respondent. The enhanced compensation will be shared
in the same ratio as is awarded by the tribunal.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge