IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.5806/2013 C/W M.F.A.No.5807/2013 [MV] BETWEEN:
BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NIPPANI, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER I FLOOR, NITHYANANDA COMPLEX NEAR MOODBIDRI BUS STAND MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. ... APPELLANT (COMMON) (BY SRI. A N KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE ANNU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. OBAYYA S/O LATE ANNU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE ANNU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4. RUKKAYYA S/O LATE ANNU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 5. RUKMAYYA S/O LATE ANNU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 6. VIJAY S/O LATE ANNU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 7. SMT.SHARADA D/O LATE ANNU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 8. PRAMODA D/O LATE ANNU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ALL R/A AMAR NIVASA MOODUKONAJE, MOODBIDRI MANGALORE TALUK-575 001.
9. ANIL S/O YELLAPA SHARBIDIRE MAJOR, R/O MARKET YARD CHANDINGLAJ KOLHAPUR-576220. ... RESPONDENTS (COMMON) (BY SRI.RAJU BHAT, ADV. FOR R1 TO R8 R9-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:10/09/2015) THESE M.F.As FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC Nos.180/2012 AND 181/2012 RESPECTIVELY ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & AMACT, KARKALA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.7,18,500/- AND RS.6,10,200/- RESPECTIVELY WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE M.F.As COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The National Insurance Company Limited preferred these two appeals, aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 04.04.2013 in MVC Nos.180 and 181 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Karkala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) against the adoption of multiplier taking the age of the deceased while calculating loss of dependency.
2. Since, both the appeals are against the common judgment and award, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.
3. The claimants in both the MVC cases filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Suresh Annu Poojary and his brother Sadananda Annu Poojary in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 25.10.2011, when both the deceased were traveling in Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19/D-2691, a lorry bearing registration No.MH-09/BC-3198 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tata Ace vehicle, due to which, Suresh Annu Poojary and Sadananda Annu Poojary succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is stated that Suresh Annu Poojary was aged about 29 years and Sadananda Annu Poojary was aged about 31 years respectively as on the date of accident. Both the deceased were drivers by avocation and earning Rs.20,000/- each per month.
4. On issuance of notice, the second respondent/Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement denying the claim petition averments. Further, it was stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Sadananda Annu Poojary who was driving Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19/D-2691. Further it was contended that the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident.
5. Claimant No.1-Chikkamma was examined as P.W.1 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.R1-insurance policy was marked.
6. The Tribunal, based on the material placed on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,18,500/- in MVC No.180/2012 and Rs.6,78,000/- in MVC No.181/2012 on the following heads.
MVC No.180/2012:
MVC No.181/2012:
While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and 16 respectively taking the age of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the said portion of the judgment, the appellant/insurance company is before this Court in these two appeals.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurer would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 17 and 16 respectively taking the age of the deceased. It is his submission that the age of the younger parent ought to have taken into consideration for adopting the appropriate multiplier.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants would submit that it is settled law as on this date that for adopting the appropriate multiplier, age of the deceased is to be taken. Thus, the Tribunal is justified in adopting the multiplier of 17 and 16 respectively. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeals.
10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration in these two appeals is whether the Tribunal was justified in adopting the multiplier based on the age of the deceased?
11. Answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The accidental death of Suresh Annu Poojary and Sadananda Annu Poojary on 25.10.2011 involving Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA-19/D-2691 and a lorry bearing registration No.MH-09/BC-3198 are not in dispute in these two appeals. It is settled law as on this date that while deciding the compensation under the head loss of dependency, age of the deceased will have to be taken into consideration for applying the correct multiplier. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUNNALAL JAIN AND OTHERS v/s VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 wherein it is held that the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. Further, the same was reiterated in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v/s PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Tribunal taking note of the age of the deceased who were aged about 29 years and 31 years respectively, applied the multiplier of 17 and 16 respectively, which is in accordance with law and does not warrant interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, both the appeals are rejected.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms