M.A.C.A. No. 3998 of 2016. Case: Kumaran and Ors. Vs Roy Mathew and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)

Case NumberM.A.C.A. No. 3998 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: T.C. Suresh Menon, P.S. Appu and A.R. Nimod, Advs. and For Respondents: Mathews Jacob, Senior Advocate and P. Jacob Mathew, Adv.
JudgesC.K. Abdul Rehim and V. Shircy, JJ.
IssueMotor Vehicles Act
Judgement DateJanuary 13, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Kerala (India)


C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.

  1. The claimants in OP (MV) No. 1715/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. When the appeal came up for admission, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company entered appearance through Senior Counsel Sri. Mathews Jacob. We heard counsel for the appellants as well as the Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. The claim petition before the Tribunal was filed by dependents of a person who died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 23/06/2006 at 9.25 a.m. The deceased while riding a Scooter was hit by a Tipper Lorry at Thrissur-Shornur public road. The Tribunal found that the Driver of the Tipper Lorry was negligent in causing the accident, and hence held that the 3rd respondent insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 13,27,980/- along with interest at 9% per annum. In the appeal the appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation, mainly disputing the method of computation adopted for determining compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'.

  2. The deceased at the time of death was working as a Drawing Teacher in the Government Boys High School, Wadakkancherry. From Ext. A11 Certificate it is proved that she was drawing a net salary of Rs. 17,933/- per month. From the records it was revealed that the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of death and was left with a service of 4 more years, till her retirement, which is at the age of 56 years. The Tribunal found that the correct multiplier to be adopted in the case is 11. But taking note of the deduction in the extent of income after her retirement, a split multiplier was adopted. For the period of 4 years left in her service, the full salary was adopted for determining the multiplicand. For the remaining period of 7 years, the multiplicand was fixed by adopting 50% of the salary, observing that if she would have alive she will be entitled only for a monthly pension, which will only be half of the salary.

  3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that adoption of a split multiplier method is illegal. In this regard he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttamma and Others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another 2013 KHC 4997: 2014 (1) KLT 738: 2014 (1) KHC SN 6: 2013 (15) SCALE 437: AIR 2014 SC 706: 2014 (1) KLJ 777: (2013) 15 SCC 45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT