Kerala High Court
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance ... vs Raju Lal M.J on 20 May, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
MACA NO. 3163 OF 2015
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.03.2015 IN O.P(MV) NO.620 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P(M.V):
THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, HIGH LANE PLAZA, M.G.ROAD,
KASARAGOD-671 121,
REPRESENTED BY THE DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,
R.SUKUMARAN NAIR, (MANAGER), REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY
TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 011.\
BY ADV.
DINESH MATHEW J MURIKAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 IN O.P(M.V):
1 RAJU LAL M.J.,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, VINEETHA BHAVAN, BELA,
BELA VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, PIN-671 321.
2 BALAKRISHNAN K.V.,
AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.K.V.KOTTAN, KUNNUMMAL VEEDU, LAXI NAGAR,
HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 312.
3 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
BY ADVS.
SHABU SREEDHARAN
SIDHARTHAN V.K.
S.SIVACHALAM
HARIDAS A.R.
ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO.3163/2015
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024.
This appeal is originated from an award passed by Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod on 21.03.2015 in
O.P(M.V) No.620 of 2011. The appellant is the 3 rd respondent
in the above Original Petition filed before the Tribunal and was
the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. Challenge was raised mainly against the monthly
income adopted for computing compensation for permanent
disability. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was
aged 53 years at the relevant time of the motor accident and
therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the monthly
income, he was getting from his profession as an Aided School
teacher for the purpose of computation of compensation for
disability. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner
being aged 53 years would undoubtedly retire at the age of 56
years. Therefore, he won't get the very same monthly income
after retirement and that factum was omitted to be considered
by the Tribunal while calculating compensation.
3. This Court has gone through the impugned award
and found that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the monthly
income in consideration of personal expenditure of the
petitioner. The case on hand being not one filed seeking
compensation in a death case, the Tribunal has gone wrong in
deducting 1/3rd .from the monthly income in consideration of
personal expenditure. The compensation was sought in a case
where personal injuries have been sustained by the petitioner.
Therefore, the Tribunal is erred in deducting 1/3 rd from the
monthly income towards personal expenditure.
4. Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the
petitioner as `30,060/-, which stands proved by Ext.A7 salary
certificate, for the purpose of computation of compensation for
permanent disability. The Tribunal had taken the salary as
such and the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased
then, for calculating the compensation for disability. According
to him, since the petitioner was due for retirement after three
years from the date of the motor accident, the Tribunal ought
not to have done so. Rather, it would have opted the split
multiplier method. The learned counsel has rested his
contention on Kumaran v. Roy Mathew [2017 (1) KLT
668] where a Division Bench of this Court has held that
considerable reduction in the income, which would definitely
fall in the life of the deceased after attaining superannuation if
he/she would have been alive, is a factor which may have been
taken note of by the Tribunal.
"The considerable reduction in the income, which would
definitely fall in the life of the deceased after attaining
superannuation if he/she would have been alive, is a
factor which may be taken note of by the Tribunal. Such
specific reason for adopting a different multiplicand for
different periods, specifically split up from the entire
period of multiplier, is based on reasons available in the
evidence on record. Application of split multiplier in such
cases with different rates of multiplicand is not illegal or
erroneous, nor it run against the dictum contained in the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above.
The Apex Court discouraged the application of split multiplier
method in Puttamma and Others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy
and Another [2014 (1) KLT 738 (SC)]. Therefore, the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel in that regard is
discarded.
5. The learned counsel has relied on Raju Sebastian
Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (5)
KHC 662], wherein a Single Bench of this Court while dealing
with the probable monthly income of a person with educational
qualification and experience, after his retirement from a
government institution, held that it would be 50% of the income
of the person concerned, while he was in service unless there
are valid reasons to adopt another method. The case on hand is
one in which the injured was aged 53 years at the relevant time
of the motor accident and it is a matter of confirmity that he
would retire at the age of 56 years. Therefore, this Court also
finds it appropriate to take 50% of the monthly salary earned by
the petitioner at the time when he met with the motor accident.
The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure considered
by the Tribunal being wrong is set aside and this Court is
inclined to calculate compensation for permanent disability by
adopting `15,030/-, being 50% of `30,060/-, the salary earned
by the petitioner.
6. When compensation for permanent disability is
calculated afresh based on the modified monthly income, the
petitioner will get only `8,92,782/- (`15,030/- x 12 x 11 x
45/100) (Rupees Eight lakh ninety two thousand seven
hundred and eighty two only) as compensation towards
permanent disability instead of `11,89,188/- stood awarded by
the Tribunal.
In the result, appeal on hand is allowed and the
compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under the head
permanent disability is modified as above. Challenge having
not been raised against compensation stood awarded under
other heads, those are maintained.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
JJ
