IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 595 of 2003()
1. THE MANAGING DIRECOTR, NESAMONY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R. JOHNSON, S/O. RAMU NADAR,
... Respondent
2. VIJITHA (MINOR), D/O. DECEASED
3. BIJU (MINOR), S/O. DECEASED
4. VIJITH (MINOR), S/O. DECEASED
For Petitioner :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :21/10/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.595 OF 2003
-------------------------------------
Dated 21st October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Wife of the first respondent and mother of respondents 2 to 4
died in a motor accident. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the driver of the appellant and appellant was
directed to deposit a compensation of Rs.3,04,800/= with interest. The
contention of the appellant is that quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal was excessive. The deceased lady was a vegetable
merchant. According to the claimants, her monthly income was
Rs.3,500/=. The Tribunal has taken only Rs.1,800/= as the monthly
income. Contention of the appellant is that the income of the deceased
was not proved and, therefore, Rs.1,800/= ought not have been fixed as
the monthly income. Oral evidence was adduced to show that the
deceased was doing vegetable business. No counter evidence was
adduced. Apart from the above, she was the mother of three minor
children. Services rendered to the family as a house wife, mother of
three minor children and a wife cannot be under-estimated and those
services are not valueless. Therefore, Rs.1,800/= fixed as the monthly
income cannot be termed as excessive. One third was deducted and
MACA.595/2003 2
Rs.1,200/= was taken as the monthly loss of family contribution and
calculated compensation. Since the deceased was aged 35, 17 was
taken as the multiplier taking guidance from the second schedule.
We are of the opinion that the multiplicand taken was only a paltry
amount. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that second
schedule should be taken as a guideline for fixing multiplier. We are
of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable and no interference is required in the same.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE
tks