Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt C.K.Sarva @ Sarvamangala on 2 August, 2010
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
IN7?HEHKH{COURT(H?KARNADMQ&KTBANGALORE
DATED THIS THE OZND DAY OF AUGUST 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE LNARAYANA Sf§i;w'A1j\2:IYv.L:"' A-
M.F.A.NO.14446/2OO7~V(1'/W) H D " ; D
BETWEEN: I D 1
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 'L121.
NAMAKKAL BRANCH O
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL QF'FIC,E" --. "
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, ' . - "
#44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD " __ J
BANGALORE--56O 025
RERBYITS S
SR1 P . ...APPELLANT
(BY SR1 ADV.)
AND: _ V'
1, A SMT. SARVAVID SARVAMANGALA
, AGED"'AI?£»f)UTA.4»3 YEARS
"W/Q'.'LA'Fv,E'B§RUDRAPPA
MISS GULABI
" AGED-«.ABOUT:'~'21 YEARS
D/O.LA2:E1;3.RUDRAPPA
1';/I_E2;DVI2D§F1JNITH
"AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
_jS'/O;,LATE BRUDRAPPA
M-""'~'~»,
EV
4. SMTLAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
W/O. LATE BOREGOWDA
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KRS AG
KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT
[BY SR1. H.C.SHIVARAl\/IU, ADV.)
*$*$****
.. .RESI§0NjDENTS _
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDEDEfSEcTI'0N""1?:'3(.'i3 OF' MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JU_DGMEi,\IT_A"'vAN-D AWARDS: DATED
27.08.2007 PASSED IN MVcA~.N0I;i69E2/2I00i4,0N THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DNI; 'IMAEMEER,"'ADVDIITI0NAL MACT,
KUNIGAL, AWARDING A CQM'PENSATI{DN' ODE ='RS.9, 16, 192/-
WITH INTEREST ATE?/Q PA. FROM 'THE DATE OF PETITION
AND ETC. 'V _
THIS iii./'I.F.A. FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DVEi..IVEVR_.EDTH.E;'.'FOLLOWING:
"flTJ0DéMENT
€i'p'pé'a14' is by the appellant -- Insurance
the liability and challenging the
and dated 27/8/2007 passed in MVC
' 1011 the file of the Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.} Member,
«.'V.'M2~XLE"F.;V_VKuTiigaI.
2. The ground taken by the appellant ~ Insurance
with regard to award the compensation under the
of dependency. It is submitted by the appellant'sjco'u'nis_el
that. the deceased was working as ;a'b1er1;_ ivscholol
and was drawing gross salary of pVRs.9.a33t5*,/E
Rs.7'.689. The Tribunal did not'~~.....:i?ioticev. that.t'%iel"3:deceasedit
would have retired in anotl'ie1fp 7 years-therealftervvhe would
get only 50% of his salary as it
3. Tribunal has
erred in taking loss of agricultural
income to make' since the deceased was a
full time employee..,'Ill*ie.l4VIac't:l:t.iiat a full time employee Would
ri.otp_vbe upcarryl.o_n_:agricuitural activity and that the
clairnarits. l1a.lVl'1:'igH"in1'1€I'it€d those lands would not suffer
veconori1i.c"'ilosls considered by the Tribunal. in View of
if the deceased is a full time employee the
5_'_'additionalcompensation cannot be taken into account.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
the Tribunal has taken into consideration all legal
\
aspects and also relied upon a decision reported in [LR
2000(4) KAR page 3809 in the case of Union of India and
Others V/s K.S.Lakshmi Kumar and Others, where it is held in
para 16 that:
"Where the multiplier applicable yispVhighei"tha:1'_i the " _ it
number of years of service which they dec'eiased--._had._i_ f
before superannuation, the contribution./die
family (or loss of dependeney)"'e.annot. o'b1rio'1isij/'be
calculated with the reference___t_o~t_he__saiary .i,ncofne,
for the entire period of.rnult::ipli;er.*«"us illustrate.
If a person aged 567 age of
in an accident,
leaving-_him wife and two children,
how shoi,-rlppd loss of dependency be
_ ca1cuiated?lLet_l_VVus assume that his salary was
aiidllwaflter retirement, his pension
under the Davies method
accepted adopted by the Supreme Court, the
V app'l'ica'bl.e"'multiplier will be '9'. But, deceased
jwouldl have got salary income for only 4 years and
l"'lltiie_np".--'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)
K
2,
E
i
would have been Rs.4,000/-- (that is Rs.6000--
2000}. But, obviously the contribution to the
family would not have been Rs/L000/~ after
retirement, that is form the 53* year onvvardst;'i:4"s.
When the pension is Rs.8000/- per montl--i:,:"aVfteeV:r:u
deducting one third as personal and"
expenses, the contribution to the
to be Rs.2,000/-- per month,_Therefore, thp¢..".:,o's's of '
dependency cannot be
month for the entire period "yea-rs representing
the multiplier. It hasvtoibep t"a}{I§V::1'lv.Ei'§_vp:RS;~~4jp,0O0/W per
month for the first foiir yearsv"__(vv:he'n,iieivrrould have
been in service'}._a'nd for the
remaining years (v.rhen hewould have received
pension). : ""I'he='i';iethold__'"adopted in the above
illustration' will 'have to "b_eapplied in this case".
M5. Wiuaaiias adopted the method contrary to
the' by taking agricultural income as
and total monthly income is multiplier by
'wh1ch"eomes to Rs.69,516/~». Actual multiplier would
taken as 11 and since he is having 7 years of
service and there after he would have got only 50%
his salary as pension. The pensionary amount multiplier by
J
'K
4. Instead of adoption this method of calculation the Tribunal
has calculated the entire annual income. Hence, the learned
counsel submitted that the Tribunal has erred in
compensation towards loss of dependency. Hence,
for allowing this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for__. the u
that, the Tribunal has not commttted error; has been
awarded by the Tribunal is and; pr'oper';'~t.he claimants are
entitled for more compensation -. of loss of
dependency. Hence, this appeal.
7. lhave Vtlhcciarguments of both the learned
counsel for. theR"ap:pellant'- Insurance Company and learned
counsel for the respondents.
8..."*lItV list-Vljulndisputed fact that the deceased was full employee. working as a clerk in Aided School and was gross salary of Rs.9,336/-- His declared net income of V' --. The Tribunal calculated the agricultural income basis of the Ex.P.8 and additional income at J 'L \ \ 7 Rs.l,800/--. It is decided law that when the person is Working on a permanent full time job that income should be takeinp for the purpose of awarding compensation. In View :U{'dé(?:id. consideration the Tribunal calculated his ., Rs.7,689/-- p.m. Accordingly, his income it is deducted by 2/3 it comes to }?§s.7,l68V_E'3'X Rs.4,30,584/-. Balance of pensionai*yl3eaetit'l_5'l)%Vf;of salary calculated as a pension it to 2/ 3 = 2,562/~. Rs.2,562 x 12 X 4. = Rs.i1«;i>}e3~;0o8;'.;.d"ro§a1Rs.5.53.6o8/it awarded under of in the place of Rs.8,34,19?;/yd _o-twthe above submission, Claimants are Vpeiititledllior.llcornpednsation under the head loss of dependency at».
" counsel for the appellant -- "In-surance uifgedfthe award made on conventional heads is Epnpp higher side. By looldng at the number of and their age, I do not interfere with that part the judgment and award. § 3 3 E l:
Ms:
Accordingiy, appeal is partly aliowed. Amount in deposit is to be transmitted to --- i.- '