National Insurance Co Ltd vs Pakyanathan S/O Pushpanathan on 24 July, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALOR§Z

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF' JULY 2009 ._  j
PRESENT  " "

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE.,.N,K.PATIL:if». ':  H  M'

AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS1':cE I}I;BiLI4A}*.:151§_:v«--»... 
MFA.N0.6927/2_(:)'0-4}'   V
BETWEEN: N *  %

National Insurance C0,, Ltdi,'  - if
Through its Regi0nai'~Q ffice=,_ _ A
N0.144, Subhazfam      V
M.G.Road, Banga1c§fe_,.~ S604 001.  

Rep. by its }'&ss--ista_1'fi;vv&c{m£fii3ii1*at'iv'e Officer

Miss.D.Karthika. % "APPELLANT

(By Sri. BDC -.S»1eetflfia1§arnfi Réao  ,]

1. 

 V'   S / (5 .Pi1shpa1-éathan,

.2." 'Smt. Fat.fiima Mary, Major
., 4. . , "W/.0, Pakyanathan,

'4 ' ' *  « .    Ciimancy, Ma} or

   T Maiy Shobha, Major

L/



5. Maria Sanjith, Major
6. Maria Anthony, Major

(Respondents 3 to 6 are children of
Pakyanathan and all are residents of

Hassan Road, Arasikere Town)    A  it it

(By Sri.M.B.Naragund for R1 to R6)

This MFA is filed u/S.1'?3 (iyotfi MV*A¢t' against the
judgment 8: award dated 3Q;»5-2'0'O4r paassed in MVC.No.9/O1
on the file of the Civil Judge :{Sr.'._Dri'.) and AX»/IACT, Arasikere,
awarding compensation of Rs;.8,6¢i,'330__,/_¥'--with;_interest at 6%
pa. and directing the.appeV11a:ot:her*ei:1_ to"de"p-osit the same.

This MFA__ f hearing' tjhiisu day, HBILLAPPA, J.,
delivered the foi1owii1g:-F---- .  "  :  

d$ign§MENT
This apperaitis direeterdfiagainst the judgment and award,
dated 2o§5§V2aoo4, ijassedhy the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.] & Addl.

 A;asi:kere;' in   MVC.No.9/2001 .

2d.   impugned judgment and award, the

 has " granted compensation of Rs.8-,64,330/- with

 ititere_st" at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the

  i _ T date"of realisation.

L/t



3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant--Insu.rance

Company has filed this appeal, questioning the 

4. In brief, the facts are; that on  

9.30 p.m., when the deceased Mariajvleoses  ll

on his cycle on the left side of the. road, 

P.P.Circle, a Maruti Car bear1ng1§'o».,cTnl; 1616_icvarne""'at 'highly

speed, being driven by it,.s.._driver" infa*rashllandvnegligent
manner and dashed against   a result of that,
the deceased  head  snccumbed to the

same. The respondientsllll.  are-the parents, brothers

and sisters' of .. claimed compensation of
Rs.l0,00,000  awarded compensation of
Rs  interest at 6% per annum from the date of

petition"  of realisation. Aggrieved by that, the

 Company has filed this appeal,

_  qnlestioning quantum.

  The learned counsel for the appellant contended

 "compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly

i,/



excessive. He aiso submitted that the respondents 3 to "6 are

the brothers and sisters of the deceased and they.:are..f_i1ot

dependants and therefore, they are not entitled A =

compensation and therefore, the Tribunalwas not'j--u'stifie:d in if

awarding compensation to them. He 

Tribunal has taken the income of deceased, -l" l

per month without any basis.  h'e.subrni"ttetiE that the
age of the parents shouid   seiecting the
multiplier and  adopting the
multiplier of 17.   the deceased was a
bachelor   was not justified in
deducting   expenses. He, therefore.
submitted,thpatllthelZiinpuénedl judgment and award needs to
 V '''''' f  

 this, the Iearned counsel for the

lf'i"~i'r*espond»ents'.1lZtb  submitted that, the Tribunal on proper

.. :CC}flSlCle71'atl.0Ii:Of the material on record, has awarded just and

reasonable compensation and therefore, it does not cal} for

 linterference. He also submitted that the Tribunal has rightly

1,2



taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-- per month.

Further he submitted that the Tribunal takingi

consideration that there are large number of depeiidants:';'  *

deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses  'pitta

does not call for interference. He 

multiplier adopted by the  proper;.,.He;""there:fore,'V'V

submitted that the impugned jupd'grnentVV"and awards" does not

call for interference.

7. We have i V ' c.aref;tdl3f 'consitderevd  . the submissions

8. The 'point'fftha.t "t'a_1__"ises' for our consideration is,
whether the Tr:Z_bunai._ hasratzwarded just and reasonable
.CorflP€fl$'Ci{iQ'§?  Z _____ 

   T itiis  to note, the Tribunal has awarded a

 of~ towards loss of dependency, taking the

 of..:ti;1eV deceased at Rs.6,000/-- per month and

 /3"' towards persona} expenses and adopting the

h  of '17". The learned counsel for the appellant

L/p



contended that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting
1/3rd towards personal expenses as the deceased was a

bachelor and the Tribunal should have deducteVda'.:.:E5()°/in "case--.oi'v_.a"'--ihvache1or,TV'
50% is deducted towards :"persoriai=.expenses.T"But, in the
present case, there are six Vddepe'n'dantsl"-an.d'.'__therefore, the
Tribunal has dedqeted:yj'1/Std  expenses. We
do not find any4'Ve1_V§r'orV'V'o'r  it. The Tribunal has

_ ____  '«i.;:::__   "  ilkeclecewieai 15,»
adopted mu.itiplier.iVo_Vf 1?, Theage of the fatheikwas 54 years
at the time ofaecident._jf.The're"is no clinching evidence on
record regarding  age 'of the mother or the other
   _  _____  gfyflte Ci€"--9""'w£;,...
(Zjlf3p€i'1(j1';';iIi$,S.:*hHO'\P5?t3V€I', we can take the age of the motherAas

betweeri./$6  years. The dependency of the respondents

 6 \yould..__'not«:"have lasted long as most of them are either

their-' "majority or attained majority. Therefore, the

 vcias not justified in adopting multiplier of 17. The

 should have taken the age of the parents while

L/,



"me <i€'3€G'5e& 1%»
selecting the multiplier. if the age of the II10thEI}\lS taken as
between 46 to 50 years, then, the suitable multiplier  

the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,000/if 
and 1/ 3"' is deducted towards personaleexpaeiisels;iilthelllloéss  nu
dependency per month comes to land  

it comes to Rs.48,000/- and ifV'11:1:i:jltiplie'1 ._of 

then, the compensation pvayable,toWai°dVs'<.1oss'of'-dependency

comes to Rs.s,24,o00/- and'aeeordii1g1yi:.tit."iS§Vxawarded.

10. The   the Tribunal
towards   expenses, loss of
estate and tnediealei just and proper and therefore,
it does not ca.ll"foi'  it

1 file  vvvlpppppeompensation payable comes to

 breakup is as fo11oWs:-

r,/



(a) Towards loss of dependency Rs.6,24,000/--

(bl Towards loss of estate Rs. 4

(C) Towards funeral expenses Rs.    

{d} Towards transportation charges    ".:,*j9'_v,'};'E":f3V"','.,.V  
(e) Towards medical expenses   *  

TOTAL    

12. Accordingly,   "land the
judgment and award,   Tribunal, in
MVC.No.9/200l,_   compensation of
es.e,72,e3o/.,,ieae;;e;;r with interest at 6%
per annumhorn   till the date of realisation.
The appellantLlglfsurance'Velfifornpany shall deposit the balance
 "'i;he_____ainount already deposited, within
 weeks'  ay.

 of  compensation amount, the second

-. jVifesp»ondent .sl1iall be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,72,330/--.

    deceased first respondent is entitled to a sum of

"e.VhRsi2,,0%0,00O/-- and since he is no more, the said amount shall

  belapportioned equally amongst the respondents 2 to 6.

V



The respondents 3 to 6 are entitled for a surn of

Rs.50,000/~» each.

Out of the compensation amount, 50% shallddaed  

in Fixed Deposit in any nationalised or tsehéedttldeddé  K 2

respective names of the respondents1'2.   forfla.

three years and they are entitdiedjj "11:1t'erest"'

accrued on it. The balanee  éhe"~re'i'eased in
favour of the respondents 2dto T'   T T

The amount *_- 'Court shall be

transmittedVtoVTtheitfTrih?::'nai  dishnrsement.

Draw uputhe avV{rVa1f.'ei',.'._aciC:;'or<ding1y.

 .....  

JUDGE

Sd/1
JUDGE

T /Js