IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 260 of 2006()
1. V.CHINNADURAI, S/O.VELUPILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. TAMIL NADU, STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Vs
1. LEELAMMA.M.G., VECHOOR (H),
... Respondent
2. ABHILASH.V.T., DEEPA, VECHOOR (H),
3. ASHA.V.T., VECHOOR (H),
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.TOMY
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.JOSEPH PAZHEPARAMBIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.260 of 2006
&
Cross-Objection No.71 of 2006
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair .J,
This appeal and cross-objection arise from an award passed by the
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Pala, granting compensation to the
claimants for the death of the husband of the 1st respondent in the
appeal who was the father of the remaining two respondents. We have
heard counsel for the respondents who are cross-objectors and counsel
for the appellants (respondents in the cross-objection). While the appeal
is for a declaration that there was contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased and for a reduction of compensation attributable to it, at the
same time the cross-objection is for enhancement of compensation of
the award for loss of dependency and under other heads. The deceased
was an excise guard at the time of the accident. The case of the
appellants/respondents is that the deceased indifferently crossed the
road within breaking distance and the driver could not prevent the
accident. However the counsel for the respondents/cross objectors
submitted that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent
driving and the finding of the M.A.C.T. in this regard is in order. The
contributory negligence of the deceased pleaded by the appellants/
respondents is supported by the interested testimony of the 1st appellant
M.A.C.A. No. 260 0f 2006 -2-
&
Cross-Objection No. 71 of 2006
who was the driver of the bus. We do not find much significance to the
interested testimonies in this case. Since there is no independent
evidence of contributory negligence of the deceased, we confirm the
award of the M.A.C.T. Therefore this issue is found against the
appellants..
2. The next question is regarding the claim for reduction of
compensation . Since the evidence of age, employment and salary etc of
the deceased are not disputed by the appellants there is no justification to
interfere with the compensation awarded for loss of dependency which
represents the main share of the compensation. On the other hand we
find some force in the contentions of the respondents who are the cross-
objectors that the M.A.C.T. did not take into account the future increments
and the promotion prospects of the deceased who had yet another 5
years career in the Department The counsel for the respondents/cross-
objectors submitted that in the course of another five years the deceased
would have got one stage promotion. He further pointed that the
general increase for salary of State Government employees periodically
given for which the deceased was also entitled . Besides the above points,
it is also pleaded that the deceased would have retired after five years
and his pension would have been reckoned based on the last drawn
M.A.C.A. No. 260 0f 2006 -3-
&
Cross-Objection No. 71 of 2006
salary and compared to it the family pension got by his wife is very low.
We notice from the award that the compensation granted is with
reference to the amount of salary drawn by the deceased at the time of
his death. It is a well known fact that there is rise in pay of Government
employees every five years and the deceased would have got at least
one increase before retirement. Since it is difficult to calculate the exact
incremental benefits and consequential loss on account of the death of the
deceased, we estimate and fix the sum at around 46,000/- and
consequently there is an increase in the total compensation awarded to
Rs. 4,50,000 from Rs. 4,04,000/-. There will be direction to the 2nd
appellant/2nd respondent to deposit the additional compensation amount
with interest at the rate of 7 = % from the date of application till realisation
This M.A.C.A. and Cross-objection are disposed of.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE)
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
es.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
—————————
M.A.C.A No. 260 of 2006
&
Cross- Objection No. 71 of 2006
—————————-
JUDGMENT
7th October , 2008