Dismissed

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited., v. Smt Karibasamma

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024MFA/9499/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company seeking reduction of motor accident compensation. The court upheld the multiplier, applied split multiplier only for service period, applied current tax limits, and increased compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses, ultimately awarding more than the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's appeal dismissed. Insurance company directed to pay balance compensation with 6% interest within eight weeks.

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited., Vs Smt Karibasamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30895 MFA No. 9499 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9499 OF 2015 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., C.N.ROAD, BHADRAVATHI, NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, A.A.CIRCLE, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. …APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.LAKSHMI NARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. KARIBASAMMA W/O H.V.BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O 1^ST STAGE, 5^TH CROSS, VINOBANAGAR EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA CITY.

¶12

Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ROOPKUMAR S/O SUBBARAYAPPA, R/O BUKLAPURA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. (OWNER OF TVS VICTOR MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG NO. KA-18/L-6482)

¶14

GANGADHARA S/O SUBBARAKI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE, NO. 1318, RURAL POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI TOWN. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.E.R.GAJENDRA NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30895 MFA No. 9499 of 2015

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.594/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ADDITIONAL MACT-7, SHIMOGA, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.15,53,175/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

In this appeal, the Insurance Company is seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, rank of the parties will be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶23

The accident, cause of the accident, death of the deceased and entitlement of petitioner for compensation and liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is not in dispute. On the ground that the petitioner is wife, single dependant, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses; Income Tax at Rs.10,000/- has to be deducted; and the deceased was aged 56 years left with three and a half years of service, a split multiplier has been applied.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:30895 MFA No. 9499 of 2015

¶26

Heard the argument of Shri Lakshmi Narasappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri E.R.Gajendra Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶27

It is contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Net Salary of the deceased is Rs.24,497/- and professional tax of Rs.200/- has to be paid per month and also the Tribunal did not consider the tax component and taken full salary. Since the age of the deceased is more than 56 years, it is a case of split multiplier and the Tribunal has not considered this aspect.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the deceased was a Police Head Constable, post retirement, he had better prospects of re-employment at higher salary and pension, his income will be higher. Hence, the concept of split multiplier is not applicable.

¶29

I gave my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by both sides and perused the materials on record.

¶30

The records shows that the deceased was a Police Head Constable. He was aged 56 years and 6 months at the time of accident. Undisputedly, the applicable multiplier is ‘9’

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30895 MFA No. 9499 of 2015

¶32

and the deceased was left with 3 years of service. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not a case for split multiplier. Since the petitioner being wife alone, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down in the case of

¶33

R.Valli & Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,¹ the contention of the Insurance Company has been answered.

¶34

In the year 2012, there is no income tax for a person who earns Rs.24,497/- per month after all exemptions and allowances are allowed. Since the claimant is wife herself, the contention with regard to 50% of the deduction, even for the sake of argument is permitted, loss of dependency works out to Rs.15,08,868/[Rs.27,941(Rs.24,297+3,644)50%=1397112*9]; Medical bills amounting to Rs.12,210/- which has to be reimbursed. Loss of consortium-Rs.40,000/-. Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses at Rs.15,000/- each with (+) 10% appreciation, in the light of judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others² . The total

¶35

compensation comes more than what has been awarded by the

¶36

1 (2022) 5 SCC 107

¶37

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30895 MFA No. 9499 of 2015

¶39

Tribunal. Hence, it is not a case for reduction of compensation. Resultantly, this appeal does not merit consideration and the same stands dismissed .

¶40

The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the tribunal and the Insurance Company shall pay the balance amount of compensation with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶41

SD/(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE

¶42

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited., v. Smt Karibasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited., v. Smt Karibasamma

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

Sri Subramani Vs Sri Venkateshappa

Ambarish Vs Sri Vishwanath

Shankaramma Vs Praveen K. S.

Kum Vijayalakshmi Vs a M Changappa

Master Nandeesh Vs Chand Pasha

Mrs Chandravathi Vs Mr Abu Saleha