IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA MFA NO.7816/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. NO. 52, I FLOOR, VINAY COMPLEX, OPP: NATIONAL COLLEGE, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-04, BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., "MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS", 2ND FLOOR, 9/2, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-01, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (BY SRI P B RAJU, ADV.) AND 1. SMT K SAROJAMMA W/O LATE K REDDAIAH ACHARI, AGED 42 YEARS, 2. MRS. S PADMAJA D/O LATE K REDDAIAH ACHARI, AGED 28 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 69, BASAVANNA TEMPLE STREET, ANCHEPETE, BANGALORE-53 ... APPELLANT 3. SRI. CHANDRA PRABHA NO. C-304, 9TH CROSS, I STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-58 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI FAYAZ KHAN FOR C/R1 APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED) MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.6161/2009 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT, X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,75,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is by the insurer seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. As there is no dispute regarding death of deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 12.6.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending goods carrying vehicle Tata Telco bearing registration No.KA- 05-AB-747 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?”
5. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the deceased was a bachelor aged about 24 years and multiplier of ‘18’ applied by the Tribunal based on the age of the deceased is not proper and the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of ‘13’ based on the age of the younger parent i.e., the mother, who is 46 years old while computing loss of dependency.
6. The said issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munnalal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 against the insurer.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
8. The amount, if any deposited in the above appeal, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimants, in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE DM