A.Hariprasad, J.
Appellants are the dependants and legal heirs of deceased Kesavan Nair, who died in a motor accident on 28.08.2003. He was knocked down by a speeding vehicle while he was walking through the side of a road. He succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. 1st appellant is the wife of the deceased and other appellants are his children. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal (in short, “the Tribunal”) in O.P.(MV) No.1853 of 2003 considered the claim for compensation by taking evidence and granted a total compensation of `2,18,500/- against the respondents. Aggrieved by the insufficiency of compensation awarded, the appellants have come up in appeal.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company.
3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides and considering the award passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has not fixed the correct multiplier applicable to this case and the deduction for personal expenses made is also excessive. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802) the guidelines for applying the multiplier and the quantum to be deducted towards the personal expenses while computing the compensation on account of death have been dealt with by the Supreme Court. The above decision has been considered and approved by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013 (2) KLT 304).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has fixed monthly income of the deceased at a lower rate. He was a pepper merchant earning a reasonable sum to support his family. Court below fixed his monthly income at `2,500/-. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the monthly income was fixed without any factual basis and it is too low. The accident was in the year 2003. Considering the nature of his occupation and also the fact that he might not have earned a steady income, we find that `3,500/- would have been the appropriate amount to be fixed as monthly income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants based on Sarla Verma’s case (supra) submitted that the court below committed a mistake in deducting 1/3rd of income for personal expenses of the deceased. Going by the dictum in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) the deduction should have been only 1/4th. Another contention raised by the learned counsel is that the appropriate multiplier in this case should have been ‘9’ instead of ‘8’. This submission is also correct in view of the principles in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). We find that the court below has awarded adequate compensation for transportation, medical expenses, funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. Further, the court below has given reasonable compensation as loss of estate also. We only find that there is some deficiency in the dependency value. Therefore, we modify the compensation fixing `3,500/- as the monthly income of deceased Kesavan Nair and ‘9’ as the appropriate multiplier. It is also made clear that only 1/4th of the amount earned could be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the dependency value would be `3,500 x 9x12 = `3,78,000/-. After deducting 1/4th (`94,500/-) from this amount, the figure arrived at is `2,83,500/-. The Tribunal has already granted `1,60,000/- as dependency value. After deducting `1,60,000/- from `2,83,500/-, which is already granted by the Tribunal, the additional compensation payable towards dependency value will come to `1,23,500/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 4th appellant is a mentally ill person unable to protect himself. He is under the care and custody of the 1st appellant, mother. It is submitted that lot of money is required for the support and treatment of the 4th appellant and petition (I.A.No.1449 of 2014) is filed seeking release of the amount kept in fixed deposit is still pending. Considering the facts and circumstances, I.A.No.1449 of 2014 is allowed and the 4th appellant's share kept in fixed deposit is allowed to be withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Appellants are allowed to recover an additional compensation of `1,23,500/- (Rupees One lakh twentythree thousand and five hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks