GEETHA AND ORS. Vs. SATHEESH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE widow and children of deceased Sasidharan Pillai have approached this Court in this appeal, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13.3.2004. The accident occurred when the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL -2/235. He fell down when a jeep bearing Reg. No. KL -2/G 930 hit the motor cycle and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The evidence is to the effect that he was aged 48 years at the time of accident and was working as a Lineman in Kerala State Electricity Board, ("KSEB" for short) drawing a sum of Rs. 11,170/ - per month as salary. The total compensation claimed is Rs. 13 Lakhs and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,57,859/ -.

(2.) WE heard Shri Anchal C. Vijayan, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the insurance company, Shri Joe Kalliath.

(3.) THE question is whether the appellants are entitled to claim the same amount throughout the period during which the multiplier will operate. Of course, going by the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), for future prospects 30% more will have to be added since the deceased was within the age group of 40 - 50. We, therefore, will have to reckon the monthly salary as Rs. 14,520/ - by adding 30% more. Even though it was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the same will have to be adopted uniformly, we cannot agree. The retirement being a certain, there will be a reduction of the monthly salary after retirement. The deceased was in the service of KSEB which is pensionable. What is highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even after retirement, the deceased will be able to earn more as he was a qualified electrician. But in the absence of any evidence with regard to any offer for appointment, which may not have been possible since he had remaining 8 years of service, we can only adopt the amount which would have been drawn by way of pension. Going by the rate of pension in the KSEB also, 50% of the salary can be reasonably assessed as pension amount after retirement. We are fortified in our view in the light of the judgment of this Court in Valsa v. Ulahannan, (2015 (1) KHC 729). Since the claimants are five in number 1/4th will have to be deducted for personal expenses. The calculation of dependency compensation therefore will be the following: