Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Smt. N. Saroja W/O Late N Devadas

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2020MFA/103382/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court appellate judgment held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in not splitting the multiplier for a deceased bank employee near retirement. The Court recalculated compensation by accounting for one year of service and reduced future income for pensionary benefits, allowing the appeal in part and reducing the award.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs. 48,65,212 with interest; Tribunal award set aside; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount.

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. N. Saroja W/O Late N… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶5

M.F.A.NO.103382/2017 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COM. LTD., BALLARI, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGER, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT.N.SAROJA W/O LATE N.DEVADAS, AGE : 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O H.NO.28, KHB COLONY, WARD NO.25, BELAGAL CROSS, BELLARI, PIN CODE : 583101.

¶12

SMT.ANUSUYA W/O LATE N.DEVADAS, AGE : 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O H.NO.28, KHB COLONY, WARD NO.25, BELAGAL CROSS, BELLARI-583101.

¶13

MINOR N.PRATHYUSHA D/O LATE N.DEVADAS, AGE : 17 YEARS, R/O H.NO.28, KHB COLONY, WARD NO.25, BELAGAL CROSS, BELLARI-583101.

¶14

MINOR KHUSHIK S/O LATE N.DEVADAS, AGE : 14 YEARS,

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

R/O H.NO.28, KHB COLONY, WARD NO.25, BELAGAL CROSS, BELLARI-583101.

¶17

SMT.N.MANIKYAMMA W/O LATE N.JACOB, AGE : 72 YEARS, R/O H.NO.28, KHB COLONY, WARD NO.25, BELAGAL CROSS, BELLARI-583101.

¶18

KALAI SELVAN S.SUBBU, AGE : 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O 9A-15, MARUTHAPPAPURAM, VEPPILANGULAM, RADHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU STATE-627657.

¶19

M/S S.A.K.TRANSPORTERS, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SYED MASTAN, AGE : 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER, R/O 556, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BENGALURU-560063.

¶20

(SINCE RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.N.SAROJA W/O LATE N.DEVADAS)

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI B.S.SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R5.) (BY SRI RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.6 & 7 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1057/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.64,06,556/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR admission THIS DAY, M. I. ARUN, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Aggrieved by the judgment and award

¶28

passed in MVC.No.1057/2015 dated 06.05.2017 by the M.A.C.T. Ballari, respondent Nos.3 therein has preferred this appeal.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.02.2015 at about 12.10 a.m. (midnight) the

¶30

deceased N.Devadas along with few others were traveling in an Innova Car bearing registration No.KA.34/N.2992 from Maski to Ballari and when they were near Srinivasapura Camp on BallariSiruguppa road, driver of one lorry bearing registration No.KA.01/AC-3497 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Innova Car and consequently the said N.Devadas expired. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein being the legal representatives of the deceased N.Devadas filed MVC.No.1057/2015 seeking compensation.

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.64,06,556/- to the claimants.

¶33

Aggrieved by the said judgment and

¶34

award, respondent No.3-Insurance Company is before this Court.

¶35

The main contention of the appellantInsurance Company is that, the deceased N.Devadas was a Bank Employee when he met with an accident. He was aged about 59 years at the time of accident. He was due to retirement on the next year. The Trial Court erred in not taking note of this particular fact and applied the multiplier of “9” and has awarded the compensation. According to the appellant, the

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

multiplier ought to have been split, since the deceased had only one year of service.

¶38

The learned counsel for the

¶39

respondents disputes the same and contends that the deceased being a bank employee would earn well even after retirement. He further states that, the Tribunal was correct in not splitting the multiplier and applying multiplier of “9” taking into consideration salary drawn by the

¶40

deceased at the time of his death.

¶41

In catena of judgments, this Court has held that, when a person who is in service dies and the multiplier is more than the years of service that the deceased person had, in that event the multiplier needs to be necessarily split accordingly. It is further stated that, in the instant case after retirement, the deceased

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

would earn 50% of his income as pensionery benefits.

¶44

It is noticed that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the deceased would have retired in the very next year. Hence, the judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for interference by this Court.

¶45

As per the averments made by the parties and the records submitted, it is noticed that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.74,075/-. After deducting the income tax, his income was Rs.68,240/- per month. He was aged about 59 Years at the time of his death. Hence, the multiplier of “9” is applicable. However, he had only one year of service at the time of his death. Hence, for the said one year multiplier “1” has to be taken into consideration and for the remaining, we need to take into

¶46

: 7 :

¶47

consideration that he would be earned to 50% of his monthly income as pensionery benefits and after adopting multiplier of “8”, the same is to be calculated.

¶48

The deceased was having 5

¶49

dependents. Hence, 1/4^th of his income needs to be deducted towards his personal expenses.

¶50

The claimants would also be entitled to 15% future prospects on the income of the deceased. In addition to that, they would be entitled to receive Rs.70,000/towards conventional heads.

¶51

Accordingly, for the first year taking the income of the deceased at Rs.68,240/- per month after ducting income tax. 15% future prospects i.e., Rs.10,236/-/- is also to be added and it comes to Rs.78,476/- and after deducting 1/4^th from the same towards the personal

¶52

: 8 :

¶53

expenses of the deceased, as there are as many as five dependents, the monthly income of the deceased will come to Rs.58,857/- and the same is multiplied by 12, then the claimants are entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs.7,06,284/- (Rs.58,857 X 12 = Rs.7,06,284/-) towards loss of dependency for the first year.

¶54

For the balance years, if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.74,075/-. If 15% future prospects i.e., Rs.11,111.25/- is added, it comes to Rs.85,186.25/rounded of to

¶55

Rs.85,186/- and after deducting 50% from the same as the income of the deceased is 50% for

¶56

the remaining years, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.42,593/- and the same is multiplied by 12 and applicable multiplier “8”, then the claimants are entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs.40,88,928/- (Rs.42,593/- X 12 x

¶57

: 9 :

¶58

8 = Rs.40,88,928/-) towards loss of dependency for balance years.

¶59

Further the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads accordingly the same is awarded. In all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.48,65,212/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶60

Accordingly, the above appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, judgment and award dated 06.05.2017 passed in MVC.No.1057/2015 by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and compensation as stated above has been awarded.

¶61

The appellant-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by

¶62

: 10 :

¶63

this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶64

Insofar as apportionment, deposit

¶65

and disbursement of the compensation amount is concerned, the same shall be done as per the award of the Tribunal.

¶66

The amount in deposit made by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal immediately.

¶67

Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records forthwith.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

EM/-

The Branch Manager v. Smt. N. Saroja W/O Late N Devadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Smt. N. Saroja W/O Late N Devadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumantappa Kinnuri S/O Late Yellappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Rafiq @ Mohammed Fafiq, Vs the State of Karnataka by

Rafiq @ Mohammed Rafiq, Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt.Pinki Devi W/O Pappu Ravidas Vs Shri.Suraj S/ Peeraji Patil

The Branch Manager Vs Smt.K.Vanita W/O Sangamesh So Kolhar

Shivalingappa S/O Malakajappa Munavalli Vs Sri.Mahesh S/O Gurupadappa Patted