Partly allowed

Udaykumar v. Chithramma

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021MFA/698/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motion for filing an appeal (M.F.A.) against a Motor Vehicles Judgment and Award. The Court held that the Telegraphic Transfer multiplier of 17 applied to the mother's age of 30 under Section 166 of the MV Act, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,95,000 to Rs. 5,60,000 with conventional heads.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs. 5,60,000 with simple interest at 6% per annum; the Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 6 weeks.

Udaykumar Vs Chithramma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.698/2021 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UDAY KUMAR

¶9

S/O. NANJUNDAIAH

¶10

NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶11

REVAMMA

¶12

W/O. UDAY KUMAR

¶13

NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT KATTEPALYA

¶15

HEBBUR HOBLI

¶16

KUNIGAL TALUK

¶17

… APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAGHU R, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

1. CHITHRAMMA

¶20

W/O. LATE ERANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT CHIKKADEVANAHATTI

¶21

HEBBUR HOBLI

¶22

KUNIGAL TALUK-572130

¶23

THE MANAGER

¶24

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE

¶25

TUMAKURU TGMA BUILDING

J.C.ROAD

TUMAKURU-572 101.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶31

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC.NO.49/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. XV, KUNIGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶32

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Though the matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶35

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 17.03.2020, passed in M.V.C.No.49/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. XV, Kunigal, (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶36

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶37

¶38

The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased was aged about 12 years at the time of the accident. He was a student of 6^th standard and was very brilliant in his studies and used to participate actively in all indoor and outdoor games. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw in high speed by its driver, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 28.6.2012. The claim petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation. In order to substantiate their claim, examined the petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P10. On the other hand the respondent-Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor produced any documents. The Tribunal considering both oral and documentary evidence awarded compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit before the Tribunal.

¶39

4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the

¶40

Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Tribunal

¶41

¶42

has committed an error in awarding the compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014)1 SCC 244 in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others , wherein the Apex Court awarded the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- considering the age of deceased as 10 years and young age of the parents, namely, the mother, who was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and applied the multiplier 15 to the multiplicand by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 by taking the income as Rs.30,000/- per annum and awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- under other conventional heads.

¶43

Learned counsel relying upon this judgment would contend that the age of the mother being 30 years, the relevant multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 17. By applying the said multiplier and taking the income as Rs.30,000/- per annum, the claimants would be entitled for (Rs.30,000x17)

¶44

¶45

Rs.5,10,000/- and also an amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded under the conventional heads.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

¶47

respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case is very clear that in case of minor, up to the age of 15 years, the relevant multiplier applicable to the case is 15 and not 17. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court para Nos.40 to 43 of the said judgment, wherein the Apex Court had discussed with regard to the application of the relevant multiplier. In para No.41, the Apex Court has observed that the Court is concerned with the cases falling under Section 166 and not section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the MV Act’) and in cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, the Davies method is applicable. In para No.42, it is held that multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table, which has been incorporated in the judgment and prepared by applying Susamma Thomas , Trilok Chandra Charlie , which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 for the

¶48

¶49

age group of 15 to 20 years and other details with regard to the application of the relevant multiplier is also stated therein. Hence, learned counsel would vehemently contend that the maximum multiplier applicable would be 15 and not 17.

¶50

Having heard the arguments of the respective

¶51

counsel and also on perusal of the records, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:-

¶52

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court ?

¶53

(ii) What Order ?

¶54

Points No.1 and 2:-

¶55

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 12 years as on the date of the accident. It is also not in dispute that the mother was aged about 30 years as on the date of the accident. The petition filed is under Section 166 of the MV Act. In para No.41 of the judgment of the Apex court

¶56

¶57

in Sarla Verma’s case, the Apex Court held that for the cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, the Davies method is applicable. Further, it is observed that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table provided therein. On perusal of column (4) of the table, it discloses that for the age group between 15 to 20 years, relevant multiplier applicable would start from 18. When the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case has held that column (4) of the table stated therein is applicable, in the case on hand also, taking the younger age of the mother as 30 years, the relevant multiplier applicable would be 17 for the age group between 26 to 30 years. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the relevant multiplier to be applied in the case is 17 and not 15. When this Court comes to the conclusion that column (4) would be applicable in the cases of claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, as held by Apex Court by applying the Davies Method , the very contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company that the maximum multiplier applicable would be 15, cannot be accepted.

¶58

¶59

The Apex Court in Kishan Gopal’s case at para No.39 referring to the decision of the Sarla Verma’s case, held that it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further taking the younger age of the parents, namely, the mother who was aged about 36 years old, at the time of the accident, by applying the legal principles laid in the Sarla Verma’s case, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand on the basis of the age of the mother as 36. In the said case the age of the mother was 36 years whereas in the case on hand, the age of the mother was 30 years at the time of the accident and hence, the relevant multiplier applicable is 17.

¶60

Having considered the income at Rs.30,000 and by applying the relevant multiplier as 17, the compensation would come to Rs.5,10,000/-. That apart, the claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the conventional heads for the deceased between the age group of 10 and 15 years. Hence, relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal’s case and Sarla Verma’s case, the claimants are

¶61

¶62

entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- as against Rs.2,95,000/-.

¶63

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶64

following:-

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶67

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by granting the compensation of Rs.5,60,000/with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.2,95,000/-.

¶68

(iii) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 6 weeks’ from today.

¶69

(iv) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

JUDGE

¶72

PYR

Udaykumar v. Chithramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaykumar v. Chithramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Vs N Ramaiah

Ranjith @ Ranju Vs the State of Karnataka

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gangamma

Apoorva Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri Srinivas B L Vs Sri Sasi Knth Vallem

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Srujan P Naik