Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.2422/2017(MV-D)
BETWEEN
THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIV. OFFICE - 5, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX P. KALINGA RAO ROAD LALBAGH, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU
APPELLANT IS REP. HEREIN BY : THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.M.POONACHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT B.NAGALAMBIKA W/O LATE S.SHIVASHANKARA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2 2. SHIVARUDRA S. ARADHYA S/O LATE S SHIVASHANKARA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
PRAMATHESHWARA S ARADHYA S/O LATE S SHIVASHANKARA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
KUMAR C UMADEVI D/O LATE C K SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.475, 1ST CROSS, SHANKARA MUTT ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR
R. JANARDHAN S/O K N RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WARD NO.20, NANDI ROAD CHIKKABALLAPUR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2017, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.32/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & CJM, AT CHIKKABALLAPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,13,600/- WITH INTEREST @6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3 JUDGMENT
Respondent No.2-Insurer in MVC No.32/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkaballapur, has come up in this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 14.10.2016 on the limited ground that the Tribunal while assessing compensation has committed grave error in taking the salary income for entire multipler ‘11’ and the same should have been considered on spilt multiplier basis.
The brief facts leading to this appeal are:
The claim petition is filed by the widow, children and unmarried sister of S.Shivashankara Aradhya, who is the victim in the road traffic accident.
The records would indicate that on 19.12.2010 at about 8.15 a.m., when the victim was riding his cycle he was hit by a motor cycle bearing No.KA-40-K-5425 resulting in his instant death. The accident is not in dispute and so also death of the victim S.Shivashankara Aradhya in the said accident.
In the said proceedings, it was contended that the victim was working as an Attender in a Co-operative Bank and his age was 53 as on the date of the accident and his monthly income was Rs.21,891/-. The evidence which is adduced before the Tribunal would confirm the age, relationship of the parties as well as his income in terms of the documents which are produced at Exs.P10 to P16. The other documents are police documents which support the accident as well as the death of the victim. It is in this background, the Tribunal by deducting a sum of Rs.950/- towards professional tax and income tax, proceeded to take the income of the victim at Rs.20,941/- p.m. and applying ‘11’ multiplier, awarded compensation to claimants in a sum of Rs.22,13,600/- payable with interest at 6% p.a. The said judgment is under challenge before this Court only on the ground that the ‘multiplier’, which is adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous on the ground that at the relevant point of time of accident the victim was aged about 53 years and according to the evidence, which has come on record, the victim had another six years of service, in the organization where he was working the retirement age being 58 years.
It is in this background, respondent No.2- insurance company before the Tribunal contended that the compensation payable should have been on split multiplier method i.e., for six years, the salary income of the victim should be considered and for remaining five years, pensionary benefit should be considered for calculating the compensation.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance company as well as contesting respondents/claimants.
On perusal of the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, it is clearly seen that the grounds urged by the Insurer appears to be just and proper so far as applying the multiplier of ‘11’ for calculating the compensation payable for ‘loss of dependency’ when actual service available to deceased was only six years. Therefore, this Court would reassess the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the following manner:
Admittedly, the monthly income of the victim was Rs.20,941/-, to which, 15% is already added by the Tribunal
6 towards ‘future prospects’, and taken Rs.24,082/-p.m. (20941+15% of 20941 =3141). Thereafter, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards ‘personal expenses’, and calculated the ‘loss of dependency’ to the family which comes to Rs.1,92,600/- p.a. If the same is multiplied by ‘6’ it works out to Rs.11,55,600/-. For the remaining multiplier of ‘5’, 50% of salary income is considered as pensionary benefit which comes to Rs.4,81,500/-. With this, the compensation which could be awarded under ‘loss of dependency’ is Rs.16,37,100/- for which compensation payable under the ‘conventional heads’ at Rs.70,000/- is added, the same would come to Rs.17,07,100/- which the claimants are entitled to receive with interest at 6% p.a. as observed by the Tribunal.
The order of the Tribunal in awarding only Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ to unmarried sister cannot be accepted particularly, in this case, for the reason that, she is already 52 years and the records would indicate that only surviving support for her life was her brother, who died in the accident.
7 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is required to be modified. Accordingly, reapportionment is made as under:
i) From out of total reassessed compensation of Rs.17,07,100/-, 40% is awarded to the claimant No.1- Widow, 20% each to claimants-2, 3 and 4.
ii) So far as the compensation awarded to claimant No.4 is concerned, the entire amount with interest shall be deposited in any nationalized Bank initially for a period of five years and renewable for a period of another five years, with right to receive interest periodically for her maintenance. In the meanwhile, if she decides to invest the same in any other immovable property and/or government related bonds which would yield higher interest, she can approach the Tribunal and seek modification of this order.
iii) So far as the compensation, which is awarded for claimant No.1 is concerned, 80% of the compensation awarded to her shall be deposited in any Nationalised bank initially for a period of five years and renewable for a period
8 of another five years with right to receive interest periodically for her maintenance.
iv) Similarly, the compensation awarded to claimant No.2 is concerned, the compensation shall be deposited in any Nationalised bank initially for a period of five years and renewable for a period of another five years with right to receive interest periodically.
v) So far as claimant No.3 is concerned, the compensation shall be deposited in any Nationalised bank, till he attains majority and so far as interest is concerned, claimant No.1 is entitled to receive the same for maintenance of her minor son.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE