Kerala High Court
K.B.Ratnavally vs Respondents on 17 April, 2010
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935
MACA.No. 1955 of 2010 (C)
--------------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2183/2005 of MACT,THRISSUR,
DATED 17-04-2010.
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
-------------------------
1. K.B.RATNAVALLY, W/O. LATE V.V.VIJAYAN.
2. LAKSHMI.V.V,
D/O.LATE V.V.VIJAYAN.
3. V.V.GANAPATHI,
S/O.LATE V.V.VIJAYAN.
(ALL APPELLANTS RESIDING AT VAZHAPPULLY HOUSE,
NATTIKA BEACH P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT).
BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS
----------------------------
1. V.K.ANANDARAJ
S/O.KRISHNAN, VALLATH HOUSE, THALIKULAM P.O.
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680560.
2. BAIJU, PAYYAPPATT HOUSE,
MANAKODY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680017 .
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
S.S.N.SHOPPING COMPLEX, TEMPLE ROAD, THRIPRAYAR
NATTIKA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680566.
R3 BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan & K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
M.A.C.A. No. 1955 of 2010
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 21st day of October, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Ramakrishnan, J.
Claimants 1 to 3 in O.P.(MV) No. 2183/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichur, are the appellants herein. The appellants who are the wife and children, along with the parents of deceased V.V. Vijayan, filed the application for compensation for the death of their breadwinner, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent and assessed a total compensation of Rs. 3,35,242/- which is rounded of to Rs. 3,35,300/- and awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
Loss of contribution and dependency Rs. 2,82,592.00 Love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 Pain and suffering Rs. 7,000.00 Transportation and funeral Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000.00 Treatment Rs. 10,650.00 Total 3,35,242.00 rounded of to Rs.3,35,300/-
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the M.A.C.A. No. 1955 of 2010 -: 2 :- Tribunal, the appellants have come before this Court with the above appeal.
2. Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the Insurance Company.
3. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was working as a Village Extension Officer and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 9,662/- at the time of his death. But the Tribunal has taken only that amount for the period of two years, without considering the future prospects of increment and arbitrarily fixed Rs. 2,000/- as his monthly income after retirement and took 8 as multiplier for the remaining period for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head `loss of dependency', which is unsustainable in law. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. R. Madhusudhan and others v. Administrative Officer and another, (2011) 4 SCC 689, in support of his contention. The learned counsel also submitted that there were 5 dependants and as per the decision in Sarla Verma V. Delhi transport Corporation, 2010 (2 KLT 802, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th for his personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as done in this case.. So, the amount awarded under the head `loss of dependency' is on the lower side. The amounts awarded under the heads `pain and suffering, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection' are also on the lower side. According to the counsel for the appellants, the appellants are entitled to enhancement on all heads.
M.A.C.A. No. 1955 of 2010 -: 3 :-
4. On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the deceased had only two years of service left and so the Tribunal was perfectly justified in taking his monthly salary for two years and for the remaining period, correctly assessed the monthly income as Rs. 2,000/- and awarded just compensation under the head `loss of dependency.' The total compensation awarded is also just and proper and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court.
5. We have considered the contentions of both parties in detail.
6. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was working as a Village Extension Officer and he was aged 54 years and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 9,662/- at the time of his death. He had to retire after two years. So, one cannot expect that he will be getting the same income after retirement period as well. In the decision reported in Madhusudhan's case (supra) relied on by counsel for the appellants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that no reasons have been given for taking split multiplier in the case of the person employed in public sector or Government service. The Tribunal has given reasons for taking the split multiplier in this case. Further, one cannot expect that a person in service will be getting more income after his retirement as well. The prospect of getting employment after retirement is an uncertainty. If same income is taken M.A.C.A. No. 1955 of 2010 -: 4 :- after retirement also for assessing compensation under the head `loss of dependency' it will amount to unlawful enrichment and a bonanza for the dependants. What is to be awarded is just compensation and nothing more. However, some amount has to be fixed notionally as every person is expected to earn even after retirement. So, under the circumstances, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking two years income as his monthly salary and fixing a notional income for the remaining period. But, the Tribunal has taken 8 as the multiplier, which is not correct. For the age group of 54, the correct multiplier will be 11 as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Further, the Tribunal has not taken the future prospects of increment for two years. So we are taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- during the period of his service till retirement and thereafter, we notionally fix the monthly income as Rs. 3,000/-, considering the fact that he will be retiring as a Village Extension Officer and he will get some job considering his experience after retirement.
7. There were five dependants of which two are aged parents and 2 of them are children of 22 and 20 years old respectively. One is a girl. So, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th instead of 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased. So, taking a monthly income of the deceased during the period of his service as Rs. 10,000/- and deducting 1/4th, the appellants will be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- (10000 x 12 x 2 x 3/4 ) instead of M.A.C.A. No. 1955 of 2010 -: 5 :- Rs. 1,54,592/- awarded by the Tribunal during remaining period of his service. Further, if the monthly income is taken as Rs. 3,000/- after retirement and the balance multiplier of 9, then the appellants will be entitled to get Rs. 2,43,000/- (3000 x 12 x 9 x >) instead of Rs. 1,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, they will be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 4,23,000/- under the head `loss of dependency' instead of Rs. 2,82,592/- awarded by the Tribunal. The difference will be Rs. 1,40,408/-.
8. Vijayan died one day after the accident. We award Rs. 10,000/- under the head `pain and suffering' instead of Rs. 7,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The 1st appellant-wife is only 54 years at the time of the death of her husband and she had to live with two major children aged 22 and 20 years respectively, apart from the parents of the deceased. There is no possibility of any re-marriage at this age. So, considering these facts, we enhance the amount under the head `loss of consortium' to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. We are also enhancing the compensation for love and affection to Rs. 20,000/- from Rs.10,000/-. We are not inclined to enhance any amount under other heads.
9. In all, the appellants will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,68,408/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, which, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till date of M.A.C.A. No. 1955 of 2010 -: 6 :- payment, within two months.
With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.