Karnataka High Court
Smt. M. Anusuyamma vs The Partner on 12 September, 2022
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
MFA No. 8377 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8377 OF 2013(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. M. ANUSUYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O LATE M. BALAVENKATA REDDY,
2. M. SRINIVASA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE M. BALAVENKATA REDDY,
3. M. HARSHITH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
S/O LATE M.BALAVENKATA REDDY,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.1262,
"SRINIVASA NIALYA",
VIVEKANANDANAGAR, II CROSS,
GEETHA ROAD, ROBERTSONPET,
K.G.F.
Digitally
signed by ...APPELLANTS
PANKAJA S
Location: (BY SRI. KRISHNA REDDY R., ADVOCATE)
High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE PARTNER,
M/S SOUTHERN CARGO CARRIERS (INDIA),
# 50/1,2ND CROSS, KALASIPALYAM, NEW EXTN,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
-2-
MFA No. 8377 of 2013
2. FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PASADENA NO.18/1(OLD NO.125/A),
3RD FLOOR,"E" ZONE BUILDING,
ASHOKA PILLAR ROAD,
MADHAVAN PARK, JAYANAGAR I BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 29.10.2015)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3765/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The claimants are in appeal being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.21,09,824/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Sri.M.Balavenkata Reddy (the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3).
-3-MFA No. 8377 of 2013
2. The occurrence of the accident on 02.05.2012, in which 59 year old Sri.M.Balavenkata Reddy was killed is not in dispute. The liability of the insurer to satisfy the compensation is also not in dispute.
3. The Tribunal after considering the evidence has awarded the following sums:
Sl. Amount
Particulars
No. in (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 20,69,824
2. Loss of consortium 10,000
3. Funeral expenses 10,000
4. Transportation of dead body 10,000
5. Loss of estate 10,000
Total 21,09,824
4. In order to come to the above conclusion, the Tribunal has determined the annual income of the deceased at Rs.6,05,804/. The Tribunal has however, proceeded to adopt the split multiplier, in view of the fact that the deceased was to retire in 1 year 3 months and it -4- MFA No. 8377 of 2013 has proceeded to apply 50% of the actual salary for the period after the termination of service of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.Valli and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited - (2022) 5 SCC 107, the application of split multiplier would be incorrect. He also contends that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding future prospects.
6. Sri.H.S.Lingaraj, learned counsel for the insurer on the other hand contends that the application of the split multiplier, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was appropriate and justified.
7. The Apex Court in the aforementioned case has taken a view that the decision rendered prior to the enunciation of law in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi - AIR 2017 SC 5157, cannot be taken into consideration and the suitable multiplier would have to be -5- MFA No. 8377 of 2013 applied keeping in view the age of the deceased as held in Pranay Sethi's case.
8. The Apex Court in the said decision has also held as follows:
"10. A three-Judge Bench in an order reported as United India Insurance Co.Ltd.V.Satinder Kaur has applied the multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased even if he was a bachelor. The Court held as under:(SCC p.793, para 23) "23. Another three-Judge Bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.V.Mandala Yadagari Goud traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants. In the case of the death of a married person, it is an accepted norm that the age of the deceased would be taken into account. Thus, even in the case of a bachelor, the same principle must be applied."-6- MFA No. 8377 of 2013
11. Thus, we find that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court in Pranay Sethi."
9. In the light of the above enunciation of law, the application of a split multiplier by reduction in the salary to the extent of 50% would be incorrect. Consequently, the annual income of the deceased would have to be applied for the entire term of the multiplier.
10. To the annual income of Rs.6,05,804/-, as per the decision in Pranay Sethi's case, 15% will have to be added towards future prospects and out of the aforementioned sum, 1/3rd to be deducted towards personal expenses which comes to a sum of Rs.4,64,450/-. A multiplier of '9' -7- MFA No. 8377 of 2013 will have to be applied since the deceased was 59 years old.
11. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,64,450 x 9 = Rs.41,80,050/- towards 'loss of dependency'.
12. The claimants being the wife and two sons would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- which comes to Rs.1,32,000/- towards "loss of consortium" and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.33,000/- under the "conventional heads".
13. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimants would be entitled to the following compensation:
-8-MFA No. 8377 of 2013
Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.)
1. Loss of Dependency 41,80,050
2. Loss of Consortium 1,32,000
3. Conventional Head 33,000 Total 43,45,050
14. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.43,45,050/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
15. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal in terms of the impugned award.
SD/-
JUDGE GH