C.P. THOMAS Vs. JOSE MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal heirs of a Class IV employee of Mahatma Gandhi University, who lost his life in a road traffic accident, complain that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation. We have heard the submissions of Mr. James Kurian, Learned Counsel for the appellant and those of Mr. A.R. George, Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company.

(2.) MR . James Kurian argued that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting the contributions of the deceased towards Provident Fund and L.I.C. policies from the monthly salary of the deceased for the purpose of fixing the multiplicand for determining the dependency compensation. According to him, the future prospects of the deceased in his career were not taken into account by the learned Tribunal. He submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, such as pain and suffering etc. are inadequate. Per contra, Mr.A.R.Goerge, Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has apart from awarding dependency compensation awarded to the appellant a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - towards of loss of expectation of life. This is per se illegal. According to Mr. A.R.Goerge, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation on all other heads and there is no warrant for giving any further compensation. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully gone through the impugned award, we are of the view that there is justification for enhancing the dependency compensation determined by the Tribunal. We are in agreement with the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting contributions of the deceased towards LIC policy and provident fund. We do away with those deductions. We also follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2010(2)K.L.T. 802(SC)] and find that as the appellant was only 40 years old at the time of the death, 30% of his salary at the time of the accident should be added in view of his future prospects. We refix the multiplicand for determining the disability compensation. As the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is correct and as the Tribunal has made proper deductions, when dependency compensation is recalculated, it will be seen that the appellant becomes eligible for Rs. 1,92,774/ - towards dependency compensation. We award to the appellant the above amount as further compensation towards dependency. We notice some inadequacy for compensation towards pain and suffering and towards loss of consortium. We would have been inclined to award Rs. 5000/ - - more under the above two heads to the appellant. But we find force in the submissions of Mr. A.R. George regarding awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - towards loss of expectation to life. Since we are obliged to deduct the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - awarded towards that head, the appellant becomes eligible for a total sum of Rs. 1,92,774/ - more only which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal will stand confirmed.