IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 499 of 2005()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GIRIJA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. DHANISH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
3. DHANYA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
4. A.L.SHAJAN, S/O.LONAPPAN,
5. M.D.SUBIN, S/O.DAMODARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :26/06/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No. 499 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The appellant is the third respondent in the claim petition
filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The
respondents/claimants are the wife and two minor children of the
deceased, who died as a result of the injuries sustained in an
accident, due to the negligent driving of the fifth respondent. As
against the claim of Rs. 6 lakhs, the Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.5,88,800/-.
2. The date of the accident is 19.11.1999. The deceased
was aged 48 years at the time of the accident. He was employed
as a workman in a mill, which was run by the Government of
India. The salary certificate shows his monthly income as
Rs.4029/-
M.A.C.A.No. 499 of 2005
2
3. An amount of Rs.12,000/- was awarded towards pain and
sufferings and Rs.58,000/- towards expenses for treatment and
bystander’s expenses. Towards clothing Rs.300/-, towards loss of
consortium Rs.15,000/- and towards compensation for loss of love and
affection, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded. A further amount of
Rs.15,000/- was granted towards loss of expectation in life and for
loss of estate. Towards the expenses for transportation Rs.500/- was
granted and finally an amount of Rs.4,68,000/- stands granted towards
loss of dependency.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who canvassed
two contentions. Firstly it is contended that Rs.15,000/- granted
towards loss of expectation in life is to be interfered with. He would
further submit that the Tribunal has clearly erred in arriving at
Rs.4,68,000/- towards loss of dependency.
5. The learned counsel for the claimant would point out that this
is a case, where the Tribunal has taken 12 as the multiplier and
M.A.C.A.No. 499 of 2005
3
multiplier 13 should have been taken and there is no warrant for any
interference.
6. As far as the question of legality of awarding Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of expectation in life is concerned, we notice that the
amount awarded, even if it is treated being awarded towards loss of
estate, can be sustained.
7. The further contention regarding loss of dependency, the
learned counsel for the appellant points out that the monthly income of
the appellant was Rs.4029/- But the actual income for calculation of
dependency is taken at Rs.4,500/- He points out that this was done
considering the future prospects. He would submit that there is no
material to support the said finding. He would further point out that
instead of deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the
deceased, a lump sum of Rs.50,000/- was deducted. This is illegal.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents would point out that
the deceased was 48 years at the time of the accident. He had 10 years
M.A.C.A.No. 499 of 2005
4
of service left. The mill was being run by the Government of India.
Therefore, the monthly income taken as Rs.4500/- is reasonable,
which is to be supported. It is further submitted that even if one-third
is deducted, excess amount annually would be Rs.3000/- and taking
the multiplier of 12, the amount would be Rs.36,000/- He would
further point out that this is a case, where the Tribunal has clearly erred
in not taking the multiplier 13, instead of 12 and if 13 were taken, the
effect would be the same.
9. As far as the question relating to fixing Rs.4,500/- is
concerned, going by the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarala
Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3483 of
2008), in a case where a person is a permanent employee and he has
not crossed 50 years, an addition of 50% of the presently drawn
income can be awarded. In this case the addition comes to less than
15% of the income. If that be so, the fixation of income at Rs.4,500/-
is only to be supported. As we have already adverted to the facts, the
M.A.C.A.No. 499 of 2005
5
correct multiplier should have been taken as 13. We would think that
on the whole the compensation awarded is just and proper and the
award is to be supported.
10. The appeal fails and it is dismissed.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm