1. Leave granted. With counsel’s consent, the appeal was heard finally.

2. The grievance of the appellant-wife of the deceased-K.C. Thomas is that the revised salary and pay benefits accruing to her deceased husband, who expired as a consequence of the accident, was not taken into consideration. Her plea was turn down by the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala.

3. The facts need not be recounted in detail; appellant’s husband late K.C. Thomas died as a result of motor vehicle accident on 17.11.2012. He was employed as a Development Officer in United India Insurance Company with a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-.

4. Aggrieved, the claimants approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala(‘MACT’) seeking compensation. MACT applied a multiplier of 11 and awarded compensation of Rs.53,20,660/- by an Order dated 27.09.2014.

5. The appellant-wife had contended that the pay and other emoluments of her late husband were revised w.e.f. 01.08.2012, by an Order dated 23.01.2016. She, therefore, urged that the higher pay accruing to her deceased husband-who was in employment as on 01.08.2012, should be the basis for reckoning compensation. This plea was however, declined by the High Court, before whom this argument was made for the first time.

6. The Gazette Notification dated 23.01.2016 which increased the salary of employees of United India Insurance Company has been placed on record. Paras 7A, 7B and 7C of the pay increase [which was through the statutory regulations, i.e. General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Second Amendment Scheme, 2016 (‘the Scheme’)], is relevant; especially so, para 7B, which reads as follows :

“7B. Equitable relief. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 7A, the Development Officer who was in service at any time during the period from the 1st day of August, 2012 to the 31st day of March, 2013 shall be paid equitable relief for the period of such service.

Explanation: For the purposes of this paragraph the term “equitable relief” means the difference between the aggregate of gross emoluments and allowance for technical qualifications computed under Schedule I and Schedule H, respectively, with consequent adjustment of ex-gratia payment, Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave, as the case may be.”

7. In terms of the substantive provisions of the said amending regulations, the deceased, who was working as Development Officer, became entitled to a substantial pay increase. As against the basic salary of Rs.29,395/- enjoyed by him (as on 31.07.2012), the pay was increased to Rs.56,060/-. The increase worked out to Rs.9336/-, in terms of the revised pay slip issued by United India Insurance Company. As a consequence, the total emoluments (after relevant deduction) of the deceased w.e.f. 01.08.2012 were Rs.62,460/- (Rs.53,124/- + Rs.9,336/-).

8. Having considered the effect of the Schemewhich is undeniably statutory, what emerges is that the deceased was entitled to a pay revision atleast three months before the date of his death. This is evident from the revised arrears calculation sheet for the period August, 2012 to January, 2016 issued by the United India Insurance Company in respect of the deceased. Therefore, in real terms, the deceased income had increased by Rs.9,336/-. Even the arrears for the three months period that he actually worked when he was alive apparently was disbursed to his dependants. In these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the approach adopted by the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The appellant-wife and other family members are clearly entitled to the differential of Rs.9,336/- towards compensation, in addition to Rs.53,124/- granted to them in the impugned judgment. This shall be reflected in the computation to be worked out by the MACT.

9. The MACT as well as the High Court in this Court’s opinion, also fell into error in denying the appellants the enhanced compensation on account of the correct calculation of future prospects which ought to be 15% (instead of 10% awarded).

10. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby directed that :

(i) The compensation calculable in this case shall be Rs.62,460/- (i.e. an enhancement of Rs.9,336/-) per month.

(ii) The appellants shall be entitled to the future prospects which shall be worked out at 15% on the said amount.

11. The MACT is hereby directed to recalculate the correct amount and draw up a decree in terms of the modification indicated by this judgment. In the impugned judgment, regarding interest etc., shall remain undisturbed.

12. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.