Karnataka High Court
M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance ... vs Raja Lakshmi on 14 July, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
M.F.A.No.2599/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
M/s.UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
2ND FLOOR, KVD TOWERS, NO.7/9, OLD MADRAS ROAD
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE
REP. BY LEGAL MANAGER. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI S.SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJA LAKSHMI
W/O LATE SRINIVAS, 47 YEARS
2. AJAY KUMAR M.S.
D/O LATE SRINIVAS, 27 YEARS
3. YOGANANDASWAMY M.S.
S/O LATE SRINIVAS, 25 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
R/A: JANARDHANAPURA VILLAGE
MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK.
4. ANAND
S/O CHANDRACHAR, 40 YEARS
R/A: MAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI
TIPTUR TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.RAJU, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI C.R.
GOPALASWAMY, ADV. FOR R4)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.719/2011 ON THE FILE OF XVIII
ADDITIONAL MACT AT TURUVEKERE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The matter is listed for orders. The lower court records are received. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
The Insurance Company has filed this appeal for reduction of compensation.
2. I have heard Sri Ravi S.Samprathi, learned counsel for Insurance Company and Sri S.Raju, learned counsel for claimants.
3. The only contention raised by the Insurance Company is whether Tribunal should have adopted split multiplier method as deceased Srinivas was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and he was due to retire from service at the age of 60 years. The compensation should not have been 3 computed by applying multiplier appropriate to the age of deceased.
4. The learned counsel for Insurance Company, has relied on judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 526 (in the case of Puttamma and Others Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another), wherein the Supreme Court has held:-
"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, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC)."
5. The Insurance Company has not made out specific reasons or established evidence to depart from normal rule of applying multiplier as per the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.).
6. The learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that the matter may be remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration.
4
7. The Tribunal has rendered the impugned judgment on 27.06.2012. The judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in 2014 ACJ 526 (in the case of Puttamma and Others Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another) was decided on 09.12.2013.
8. The law is fairly well settled that matters cannot be reviewed or reopened, merely due to change in law, more particularly in motor vehicles accident claims, where claimants are victims or dependents of victims of accidents. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to remand the matter to Tribunal.
9. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited by Insurance Company shall be transferred to Tribunal.
SD/-
JUDGE SNN