Karnataka High Court
Smt K Yashoda vs Smt S Maheswari on 4 February, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Ravi V Hosmani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
MFA No.7025/2015(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. K Yashoda
W/o Late L Nagaraj,
Aged about 52 years.
2. Mr. Naveen Nagaraj
S/o Late L. Nagaraj,
Aged about 29 years.
3. Jayashree Nagaraj,
D/o late L Nagaraj,
Aged about 29 years.
All are R/at No.928, 36th Cross,
29th Main road, Poornapragna Layout,
Uttarahalli, Bangalore 560 061. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Smt. S Maheswari
W/o S Suresh Kumar,
Age: Major,
R/at Old No.3/14B,
New No.3/17,
MGR Nagara, Arapakkam,
Walaja Taluk,
Vellore District- 632517
2
2. The Manager,
Bajaj Alianz Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.31, TBR Towers
Ground Floor,
New Missions Road,
J.C.Road,
Adjacent to Mahaveer Jain College,
Bangalore 560 027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.N. Krishna Swamy, Advocate)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5.2.2015 PASSED IN MVC
No.5841/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 18TH ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4,
BENGALURU,PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, RAVI V. HOSMANI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of the Moor Vehicles Act, seeking for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.5841/2012.
2. Heard Sri. Ravindranath M, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant and Sri. A.N. 3 Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to the above appeal are as follows:
On 30.6.2012, when Sri. L. Nagaraj, had alighted from his car bearing registration No.KA-04-N-8434, when the back wheel of the car got punctured, at about 4.00 P.M., a Bolero Maxi Truck bearing registration No.TN-73-C-7394, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against L. Nagaraj, throwing him over 25ft. distance, resulting instantaneous death.
As on that day, deceased L. Nagaraj was working as a Administrative Officer with Life Insurance Corporation and was drawing monthly salary of `65,000/-. The appellants herein namely the wife, son and daughter of the deceased L. Nagaraj filed MVC.No.5841/2012, claiming `30,00,000/- as compensation against the owner and insurer of the Bolero Maxi Truck.4
4. Though the owner and insurer entered appearance in the claim petition, only the respondent No.2 - insurance company filed objections contending that the driver of the Bolero Maxi Truck did not have effective and valid driving licence. It however, admitted the issuance of insurance policy to the offending vehicle, which was in force as on the date of the accident.
5. The MACT, after going through the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a total compensation of `23,72,320/- with interest at 6% per annum, under the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs. 23,22,320/- Transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of consortium to the
Petitioner No.1 Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs.23,72,320/-
6. The respondent No.2 insurer of the offending vehicle was held liable to answer the award. Since, 5 there is no challenge to the award by the insurance company, and as the claimant is seeking for enhancement, the issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so, by what amount?"
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the award passed by the MACT was on the lower side and requires enhancement. It was contended that the MACT has erred in adopting split multiplier method for assessing the loss of dependency despite the method having been held to be applicable only when there is a specific pleading to that effect. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "PUTTAMMA VS. K.L. NARAYANAREDDY AND ANOTHER", AIR 2014 SC 706 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 07.02.2018 in MFA No.25829/2011 and connected matters. 6
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has, by referring to Para 34 of Puttamma's case, submitted that no such stipulation regarding requirement of specific pleading, is made therein. It was further submitted that in fact, in several cases, this Court has been applying the split multiplier method. He relied upon the Division Bench decisions of this Court in MFA No.100513/2019 disposed off on 18.02.2019 and MFA No.6934/2016 and connected matter disposed off on 13.11.2019.
9. On going through the decision in Puttamma's case, it is noted that in para-34 the Hon'ble Court has held as follows:
"34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (AIR 2009 SC 3104: 2009 AIR SCW 4092)(supra) as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari (AIR 2013 SC (Civ) 1731: 2013 AIR SCW 3120) (supra).7
10. Referring to Puttamma's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.25829/2011 has stated in para-17 as follows:
" 17. In the case of M/s Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Shri M Jayalakshmamma and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Puttamma's case supra, held that the Insurer in his pleading has not taken any plea regarding application of split multiplier or that the deceased lack potentiality to earn even after her superannuation. Nothing is suggested in the cross examination of the claimants/witnesses on that point nor the respondents have adduced any evidence in that regard. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the Tribunal ought to have applied the split multiplier in computing the loss of dependency. "
11. The question, whether split multiplier method can be applied in the absence of any pleadings, need not detain us in this case. In the absence of any reasons and evidence on record, the MACT should not apply split multiplier in view of the law laid down in Puttamma's case. In this case, there is no specific evidence available as to the quantum and nature of pension of the deceased. Hence, there is no sufficient 8 justification for applying the split multiplier method to this case.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant, is also right in insofar as pointing out the error committed by the MACT, in not adding future prospects, as per the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS", AIR 2017 SC 5157. Therefore, future prospects at 15% are required to be added to the income of the deceased. Hence, the compensation towards loss of dependency has to be reworked as under:
13. Since, `6,96,695/- was the annual income of the deceased after deduction of tax, if 15% is added towards future prospects, it would be `8,01,199/- and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, it would be `8,01,199 - `2,67,066 = `5,34,133/-. 9
14. As the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be "9". The loss of dependency would be `5,34,133 x 9 =`48,07,197/-. In addition, a sum of `70,000/- is awarded under the other heads such as consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per the decision of Pranay Sethi's case. The issue framed is accordingly answered partly in the affirmative and the award of the MACT is modified to the aforementioned extent.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*