IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4866 OF 2013 [MV] BETWEEN THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DO.XII, 1ST FLOOR, MAYUR COMPLEX, KIADB MAIN ROAD, PEENYA, BANGALORE-560 058.
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. REP. BY ITS DULY CONSTITIUTED ATTORNEY. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR C.R., ADVOCATE] AND 1. SMT. ESHWARAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O. SRI. SIDDAPPA @ SIDDAIAH, 2. SRI. SIDDAPPA @ SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE VEERANNA, 3. SRI. SURESH S., AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O. SRI. SIDDAPPA @ SIDDAIAH, 4. SRI. MANJUNATH S., AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O. SRI. SIDDAPPA @ SIDDAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.319, 7TH CROSS, BHEL MINI COLONY, MALLASANDRA PIPELINE ROAD, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
ARAIKERE(V) & PO, PAWAGADA TQ, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5. SRI. R. VENKATESH, MAJOR, S/O. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, NO.4572, HESARGHATTA, BANGALORE-560 988. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI.B.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4. NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.09.2015] * * * THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7923/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM, XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,23,350/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING , THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 02.03.2013 passed in MVC No.7923/2011 on the file of the MACT., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,23,350/- [as per the decree] along with interest at 6% p.a. for the death of one Satish in a road traffic accident which occurred on 18.08.2011. The deceased was a bachelor, aged about 22 years, working as a Field Executive at L.E.S. Financial Service. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record awarded the aforesaid compensation under the following heads:
The claimants are the parents and the brothers of the deceased. The only contention raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’ by considering the age of the deceased and not considering the age of the younger parent of the deceased. It is contended that while adopting the multiplier, the Tribunal was not proper in taking the multiplier ‘18’ and the multiplier ought to have been taken on the basis of the age of the younger parent of the deceased. The said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the law laid-down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others reported in (2015)6 Supreme Court Cases 347. In the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at para 11 as under:
“The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi, has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: (Reshma Kumari case, Para 36) “36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma”
In the aforesaid Judgment, it has been held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE.
Ksm*