IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.10294 OF 2013 [MV] BETWEEN:
MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., E/8 EPIP RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., 3RD FLOOR, S & S CORNER BUILDING, OPP: BOWRING & LADY CURZON, HOSPITAL, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001.
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. N. SATHYAMURTHY, S/O. D. RAMACHANDRAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 2. SHRIMATHI, W/O. N. SATHYAMURTHY, NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, 3. N.S. ADITHYA, S/O. N. SATHYAMURTHY, NOW AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS STUDENT ... APPELLANT ALL R/A. AKASH NILAYA, CHURCH ROAD, SHARAVATHINAGARA MAIN ROAD, SHIMOGA-577 101.
4. CHANDRAPPA, S/O. GANGAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY, R/O. HALIYUR, KURUBARAHALLI POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 521.
5. GURUSWAMY, S/O. MARILINGAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. BEHIND R M QUARTERS, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 521.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN B. FOR SRI. PRASHANTH P.N., ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3 NOTICE TO R4 & R5 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 31.05.2018) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.762/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, SHIMOGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.11,07,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 04.09.2013, passed by the Court of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and A.M.A.C.T. at Shivamogga in MVC No.762/2011, whereby the respondents/claimants are awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,07,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 06.05.2010 at about 6.15 pm., the deceased by name N.S. Adarsha while traveling on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-W-2977 from Nagara to Mundali Village and when he reached near Narthige bus stop, Nagara Hobli, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-16-A-8892, came from Mangalore side in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of which, he sustained severe head injury and while he was being shifted to Government Hospital, Hosanagara, he died on the way.
4. The claimants being the parents and brother of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.22,60,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants got examined PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P-1 to P-35. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and got marked the documents at Exs.R-1 to R-3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 04.09.2013, awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,07,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as noted supra.
5. Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company contended that the deceased was a bachelor, aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. The claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased while calculating the compensation. On the other hand, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the younger parent and in the present case, the mother of the deceased was aged more than 50 years and therefore, the appropriate multiplier that should have been adopted by the Tribunal ought to have been 11 and not 18, which is impermissible. He further contended that there was no convincing evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and therefore the income of the deceased taken at Rs.10,000/- per month was erroneous. Therefore he submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side and seeks to allow the appeal.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants justified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and submits that the same is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference and seeks dismissal of the appeal.
7. In so far as the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the younger parent of the deceased and therefore, the multiplier adopted is on the higher side, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 347, wherein Para-11 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held as under:
“Para11 - The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), 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 (supra). 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 view of the above pronouncement by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the contention of the appellant that the age of the younger parent has to be taken for the purpose of considering the appropriate multiplier can not be accepted.
8. In so far as the second leg of contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is seen that the petitioner got marked Ex.P-35 – the salary certificate issued by Superdeep Electricals in respect of the deceased. PW-2 who is the proprietor of the Superdeep Electricals, has been examined. It is to be noted that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and he was working as an Electrician. PW-2 has deposed that the deceased was being paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. There is nothing elicited from PW-2 so as to discard the said evidence. Considering the same, the Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased, has taken 18 as the multiplies and after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- towards loss a dependency. Another sum of Rs.27,000/- is awarded under loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. Hence, a total compensation of Rs.11,07,000/- has been awarded. The findings recorded by the Tribunal and the total compensation arrived at are based on the evidence and material on record. I see no good grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
snc Sd/- JUDGE