IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1898 of 2006()
1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.V. PUSHPA, W/O.K.V.VENURAJAN,
... Respondent
2. K.V. AMALRAJ, AGED 13 (MINOR),
3. K.V.ANILRAJ, AGED 8 (MINOR),
4. KARTHYAYANI, AGED 72 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
For Respondent :SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :10/06/2009
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.1898 of 2006
&
M.A.C.A. No.224 of 2007
---------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the day of June, 2009. Abdul Rehim,J.
1. The 3rd respondent before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, N. Paravur in O.P.(MV).194/2002 and 195/2002 is the
appellant in both these appeals. The challenge is against the
common Award. The accident happened on 19.1.2002, when a
Bus hit on a scooter driven by the husband of the 1st respondent
in MACA.1898/06 (sole respondent in MACA.224/07). The 1st
respondent was its pillion rider. The rider of the scooter died in
the accident, while the 1st respondent sustained injuries.
MACA.1898/06 is against award in O.P.(MV).195/02 filed
claiming compensation with respect to the death of the rider, by
his wife, mother and two minor children. MACA.224/07 is
against award in O.P(MV).194/02 filed claiming compensation
with respect to injuries sustained to the 1st respondent, wife of
the deceased. The challenge against the common award is on
the grounds that the findings with respect to the negligence
aspect is erroneous and quantum awarded in both the cases are
MACA.1898/06 & 224/07
2
excessive.
2. Heard Adv.Rajan P. Kaliyath, learned standing counsel
appearing for the appellants, and Adv.G. Balamuraleedharan,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The appellant
contended that the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the deceased, who was riding the scooter in a rash
and negligent manner. Records of the criminal case registered
with respect to the accident, like scene mahazar, wound
certificate, postmortem certificate, charge sheet, etc. were
produced and marked in evidence, which will reveal that the
accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the
Driver of the Bus. The 1st respondent, who sustained injuries in
the accident, when examined as PW1 gave evidence in full
support of the version in the police records. The learned counsel
for the appellant relying on the descriptions in Ext.A2 regarding
the scene of occurrence, vehemently contended that rider of the
scooter was on its wrong side. But on a perusal of the scene
mahazar it is not decernable with any accuracy about the actual
spot of the accident. He further contended that the rider of the
scooter was negligent in as much as he was not wearing head
gear at the time of accident. But it is pertinent to note that
inspite of a contention in the written statement to the effect that
the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the scooter by
MACA.1898/06 & 224/07
3
the deceased, the appellant did not adduce any oral or
documentary evidence to dispute correctness of the police
records or to prove negligence on the part of the deceased in any
manner. There is also no evidence adduced, either oral or
documentary, to show that the deceased was not wearing head
gear at the time of accident. Hence on an active consideration of
the entire evidence on record we are not in a position to agree
with the appellant that the findings of the Tribunal on the aspect
of negligence is in any way illegal or erroneous.
3. The next contention is with respect to quantum of
compensation awarded. OP(MV).195/02 is the claim for
compensation with respect to death of the rider of the scooter.
The deceased was an employee in the Local Fund Audit
Department of the State Government, aged 43 years at the time
of accident. Ext.A8 salary certificate and Ext.B1 certificate
showing deductions in the salary, revealed that the net salary
(take home salary) of the deceased was Rs.7,279/-. From Ext.A9
certificate his future prospects in service is evident. His date of
superannuation is 30.4.2014 and it is stated that, if he would
have continued in service he could have reached the level of
Deputy Director (Higher Grade) which is under the pay scale of
Rs.10,000/- to 15,150/-. The Tribunal while computing
compensation for the loss of estate and dependency, adopted his
MACA.1898/06 & 224/07
4
present monthly income of Rs.7,279/- and multiplier as 15.
According to the appellant the Tribunal failed in not making
deductions for his personal expenditure. The further contention
is that the Tribunal ought to have taken multiplicant at the above
said rate only for a period of 12 years, since he had left with
service only for 12 years. In other words, calculations made for
the entire period of 15 years on the basis of the present salary is
erroneous. On an active consideration of the contentions, we
feel that non-deduction of any amount on account of personal
expenditure is in fact not an omission. The Tribunal had taken
note of the contentions of the claimants for taking into
consideration of future prospects in service, for the purpose of
fixing the multiplicant. The Tribunal had also taken note of the
decision reported in 1992 (1) KLT 587 in this respect. The
Tribunal had clearly observed that the future prospects of the
deceased is well evidenced from Ext.A9 certificate. Therefore
we are of the opinion that the non-deduction of any amount for
personal expenditure and computation of income for the entire
multiplier of 15 years, are of no relevance and consequence,
since the Tribunal has given no weightage for the future
prospects and increase in the income while fixing the
multiplicant. Therefore, we do not find any reason to make
deductions in the amount of Rs.13,10,220/- awarded under the
MACA.1898/06 & 224/07
5
head of loss of estate and dependency. Various amounts
awarded under other heads are also quite reasonable. Hence,
we are not pursued with the contentions of the appellant for
interfering with the quantum of award.
4. With respect to OP(MV).194/02 from which
MACA.224/07 arises, the claimant had sustained contusion and
haematoma on her right forehead and eye lid, along with
bleeding through both ears, and fracture of medial wall of right
orbit. There are other injuries sustained on her right palm and
on right patellar region. The claimant is working in Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. She had availed leave of 148 days, as
evidenced by Ext.A7 certificate. Under these circumstances we
do not feel that the total amount of Rs.15,750/- awarded by the
Tribunal is in any way unreasonable or excessive.
Under the above circumstances we do not find any
illegality or error in the impugned awards. Accordingly both the
appeals are devoid of any merit and are dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb