IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2315 OF 2014 (MV) Between:
The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Sri. Ram Site Office, 2A, Prakash Road, T. Nagar, Chennai -600 017.
Represented by authorized Signatory at Regional Office, No.144, Shubharam Complex, M.G. Road, Bengaluru -560 001. …Appellant (By Sri. S. Srishaila, Advocate) And:
1. Suryanarayana Shastry H.K., S/o. late Krishna Shastry, Aged about 75 years, 2. Mrs. Srimathi W/o. Suryanarayana Shastry, Aged about 64 years.
Both are R/at Lan Links Layout, Behind Rehman Saw Mill, Shediguri, Dambel, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore -575 006.
3. Mudugeshwaran, S/o. Palanishwamy, r/at. Padmanabha Compound, Gudde Koppalu, Surathkal, Mangalore – 575 006. ... Respondents (By R1 and R2 are served; R3 –Service of notice is d/w as per the order dated 01.08.2017) This MFA filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and award dated 16.09.2013 passed in MVC No.937/2005 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Mangalore with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard.
2. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 16.09.2013 passed in MVC No.937/2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, MACT Mangalore, wherein, a total compensation of Rs.4,44,700/- has been awarded with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants/respondent No.1 and 2.
3. The case of the claimants is that on 06.05.2005 at about 3:15 p.m., opposite to Belman Junior College, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of a bus bearing registration No. TN-63/W-2799, their son –H.S. Avinash Kumar Shastry met with the accident and sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.
4. The tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record was pleased to award a total compensation of Rs.4,44,700/- with interest at 6% per annum and held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the tribunal, namely the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would contend that the tribunal has erred in considering the age of the deceased and adopting 17 as the multiplier instead of considering the age of the mother and further contended that the deceased was a student and a non- earning member on the date of the accident, hence, the tribunal erred in taking Rs.3,200/- as the monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of assessing ‘loss of dependency’. Hence the learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is excessive.
6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the multiplier applicable in the present case should be 8 and not 17 considering the age of the younger parent since the deceased was a bachelor.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Munnalal Jain and Another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others’ reported in ‘2015(6) SCC 347’ has held at Para 11 as under:
“11. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Sanatosh Devi (Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co., Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependents 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 (Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826). 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.”
8. In view of the above settled position of law, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. There is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
9. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is also dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK