IN THE HIGH coom' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY 01:' AUGUST 2009
BEFORE >
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE N. ANANDA 2' 'f it
M.F.A.No.9948/2008 (MV) i
BETWEEN: -
The Branch Manager I
ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.
Prestige Corniche, # 62/ 1, II Floor
Richmond Road. Bangaiore--56U V is-....Appei1ant
{By Sri A.N.Krishna Swarny, Ad\{o.cate}_ »
AND: ~ ,
1. Smt.Subbarathnamrna* Si_ibbam1rna.j'V_v __
W/ o. AdyappanaV'ara'*M1tniyappa V
Nowt.aged~i.abo*t;t..61-years _
R,;'o. Budikote '*;Zi1ia.ge..& Post
Bangarpcte' Kora;--- District.
2. Sreekumar V _ _
S/to. SiniVasan.,* Age: Major
, No.20, 11 Cross, Bilekahaili Layout
- Baiosnerghatta Road
Banga1ore--560 O76. Respondents
.Nv.'C}opéI.B:1'ishna, Advocate for R1; R2--Service of notice
is dis.pensedv..wi'ttf1}'V
"This-:{s;;péai is filed under section 173(1) of M.V.Act against
the judgment and award dated 15.04.2008, passed in MVC
No.,7.841/2007, on the fike of the XIV Add}. Judge, Court of Small
n j(3ausea, Bangalore City, SCCH--10, awarding Compensation with
T interest5 at 6% per amium from the date of petition till deposit.
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court
:delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Insurance Company has fiied this appeal for
reduction of compensation, inter aiia contendingV–“‘é.hat
Tribunal should have adopted muitipiier appropriate
age of claimant (mother of the deceased) and it
should have deducted 50% of the income’
towards his personal and living explenst-.s,A’ having
the fact that claimant was the o13_ijk’~~depend.ent.VVAl
2. The learned Counsel cEai’1nant’*t.>Vould submit that
Tribunal has decided :3ectio._r:;._§63–A of Motor
Vehicles Act, ‘the ;{Xct?}…..and Tribunal has
awarded,compenvsationpplbyipifoliovtring the structured formula
as per II~Sc1ieduie’ :§5tV.the:”‘;_»a¢t. Therefore, Tribunal has not
committed any error. V
V V ” matter is taken up for hearing, learned
Courisel for’vitins:urance Company has brought to my notice,
lqthe has rejected the application of Insurance
A .,:iComp*any filed under section 170 of the Act on the ground
‘ that insured had contested the ctaim petition.
3
4. After going through records. I find that the insured
has not led evidence. Mere filing of objections by the insured
should not have been a ground for the Tribunal to reject the
application under section 170 of the Act.
circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration.1’g”— .
Tribunal.
5. The controversy between,__ bpartiesd”v’..grelates”
determination of compensation.
that compensation has tobe det’e’irnined»..under”section 163»
A of the Act as per Act. Whereas,
Insurance Compan;’yv..bas::’ tjbmpensation has
to be deterininevdlviby multiplier appropriate to the
age of dependent the deceased) and deduction of
income should be :’I’i’ie Tribunal shall adjudicate upon
«controversy after considering the application
‘ there beirig any relief to claimant.
Aundeif 13/VG”‘of Motor Vehicles Act.
petition is pending since 2007, Without
+
6. In the result, I pass the following-
ORDER
The appeal is accepted. The impugned awardpisjlset
aside. The matter is remanded to
reconsideration in the light of observations made” ‘li1.ere_in and ”
in accordance with law. The Instirance
deposit Rs.2.50,000/–, inclusive of4’t.1f1e–..stat1;tet;r$f’ deposit’
before Tribunal. The Tribunai sii’al:l”tdisburse_ arnonnt so
deposited by’ Insurancw .,__GAornpanyl.:’;bVearing niind the
settled principles of law relating dofg_compensation
to an illiterate _perso_n, such payment}! investment is subject
to resuitef eléinifpn it::iei~:.t:’s;«..:’1_’>art1e_é,Vare directed to bear their
costs. Ofiiee is Vdireeted_»l’to.’:sen;d back records along with a
copy of this orders. /.
A’ _____ .. «
V V’ _ sNN””<—-