JUDGMENT

Jyothindranath, J.

This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the award in O.P.(MV)No.863/2011 dated 31.01.2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that here is a case where one K.S.Sanal Kumar met with a motor vehicle accident on 5.4.2011 at about 9.30 p.m. While deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL05/P-4304 along the Thalayolaparambu-Peruva road, a car bearing Reg.No.KL 5/X 7437 came and hit against the said vehicle and in that accident Sanal Kumar sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The claimants, who are the wife, children and aged mother of the deceased moved a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging negligence of the car driver as cause of accident and claiming a total compensation of Rs.37,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.33,49,788/-.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and without any basis. It is also submitted before us that the case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was working as a Training Assistant in Hindustan Newsprint Limited, Velloor, which is a Government of India undertaking. If he was employed therein, surely he will retire at the age of 60. As per the case of the claimants, at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 54 years. Then naturally the deceased will be having the salary income only for a period of six years and thereafter the Tribunal ought to have considered only a notional income for the purpose of calculation of compensation on the head of dependency. But the Tribunal considered his monthly income as evident from the salary certificate marked before the Tribunal as Ext.A9. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 11 without considering the fact that the deceased was an employee in a Government undertaking and will be going to retire at the age of 60. To buttress the said contention, the learned counsel also drew our attention to the decision in Kumaran v. Roy Mathew (2017(1) KLT 668), wherein it is categorically stated that superannuation is a factor to be considered by the Tribunal while dependency is calculated. It is also the submission before us that the total compensation awarded is not a just compensation and an interference by this Court is warranted. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted before us that in this case the Tribunal awarded a just compensation. It is also the submission that the compensation awarded on the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection as well as loss of estate are on a lower side. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that here is a case where the deceased was an employee in a Government of India enterprise. He was a salaried man. The salary certificate was relied on by the Tribunal for assessment purpose. The salary certificate was also proved by an official from the Hindustan Newsprint Limited. When the deceased is a salaried person, then the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision inRajesh v.Rajbir Singh ( 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC) will be applicable. It is the submission that when admittedly the age of the deceased was 54 years, 15% increase towards his income should have been made towards future prospects. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel is that a just compensation is awarded and an interference by this Court is not warranted.

5. We have perused the award and also the relevant records before the Tribunal. On a perusal of the award and the records and also after considering the submissions, it can be seen that it is a case where the deceased was an employee in a Government of India undertaking. It is also the admitted case that he is a sa