Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunitha T M vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd on 6 November, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA NO. 8079 OF 2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Sunitha T.M.,
S/o Late. Ramappa T.S.,
Aged about 48 years.
2. Praveen R.,
S/o Late. Ramappa T.S.,
Aged about 25 years.
3. Prathima R.,
D/o Late. Ramappa T.S.,
Aged about 23 years.
4. Smt. Rudramma,
W/o Late. Sangappa,
Aged about 71 years.
All are R/at:
No.325, Nanda Gokula,
Kashipura Main road,
Vinobhanagar,
2
Shivamogga-577204.
.... Appellants
(By Sri. Prakash M.H., Adv.)
AND
1. IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Sri. Shanti Towers, 5th Floor,
No.141, 3rd Main,
East of NGEF Layout,
Kasturinagar,
Bengaluru-560 043.
By its Manager.
2. Fayaz Bheg,
S/o Basha Bheg,
No.55/57, Bellur Village,
Attibele Post, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru-560 020.
...Respondents
(By Sri. C.Shankar Reddy, Adv. for R1:
Notice to R2 is dispensed with
v/o dated:3.07.2019)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated:30.04.2016
passed in MVC No.1644/2015 on the file of the XIII
Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, MACT,
Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MFA coming on for admission, this day,
H.T.Narendra Prasad J., delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 15.04.2015 at about 4.30 a.m. the deceased Dr.Ramappa was waiting for bus on the service road, in front of Elite hotel, RMC Yard 'U' turn, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-51/A-2462 came with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of accident and was employed as Deputy Director in State Poultry Farm and was earning Rs.75,000/- per month. The claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation.
4. On service of summons, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the at the time of the accident the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle . It was also pleaded that the lorry also did not possess valid permit and FC and therefore, there is a breach of policy conditions. It was further pleaded that the accident took place due to the negligent act of the deceased who was crossing 5 the road unmindfully, without observing the flow of traffic and where there was no zebra crossing. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.2 did not appear inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 - wife of the deceased as PW-1 and the Accounts Officer of the AG office as PW-2 and got exhibited 13 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of respondents, the driver of the lorry was examined as RW-1 and an officer of the insurance company as RW-2 and got exhibited one document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, 6 as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.48,47,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in applying the split multiplier. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'PUTTAMMA vs. K.L.NARAYANA REDDY AND ANOTHER' AIR 2014 SC 706. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal and seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that at the time of 7 the accident the deceased was aged about 53 years, he would have retired on attaining the age of 60 years. The Tribunal has rightly applied the split multiplier. In support of his contentions he has relied on the judgment of this Court in MFA No.4670/2016 C/w.MFA No.3663/2016 disposed of on 30th September 2020. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the conventional heads is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that Dr.Ramappa died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the accident deceased was 8 aged about 53 years and was working as Deputy Director of Poultry Farm. The age of retirement for the Government servant is 60 years. He would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS vs. K.S.LAKSHMI KUMAR AND OTHERS' ILR 2000 Kar.3809 has held as hereinbelow:
"16. Where the multiplier applicable is higher than the number of years of service which the deceased had before superannuation, the contribution to the family (or loss of dependency) cannot obviously be calculated with the reference to the salary income, for the entire period of multiplier. Let us illustrate. If a person aged 56 years (whose age of superannuation is 60 years) dies in an accident, leaving behind him his surviving wife and two children, how should the total 9 loss of dependency be calculated? Let us assume that his salary was Rs.6,000.00 and after retirement, his pension would be Rs.3,000.00. Under the Davies method accepted and adopted by the Supreme Court, the applicable multiplier will be '9'. But, deceased would have got salary income for only 4 years and then he would get only pension. If the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is one-third, the contribution to the family during the period of service (4 years period) would have been Rs.4,000/- (that is Rs.6000-2000). But, obviously the contribution to the family would not have been Rs.4,000/- after his retirement, that is from the 5th year onwards. When the pension is Rs.3,000/- per month, after deducting one-third as personal and living expenses, the contribution to the family will only to be Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of dependency cannot be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month for the entire period of 9 years representing the 10 multiplier. It has to be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month for the first four years (when he would have been in service) and Rs. 2,000/- per month for the remaining five years (when he would have received pension). The method adopted in the above illustration will have to be applied in this case. "
10. In view of the law laid down in the case of LAKSHMI KUMAR (supra) and in MFA No.4670/2016, the split multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, the claimants have not made out any case for interference.
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE cm/-