IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY BEFORE " THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L5MARAYAN'A"Siivg.A'r~1Y'_*
M.F.A. NO. 9834 OI:¥.._2Of3’8{:MVST)._’ if
BETWEEN:
AND:
THE BRANCH MANAGER NATTIOAIAL ‘
INSURANCE CO LTD –
MANNA BUILDING, X1’I_RA_JP;ET1 I5R%A.A:’CH
VIRAJPET TOWN, S K;ODAGL§’ N_Q_W
REP av ITS.REGIONALfMA’N/i.GERv_ I ~ ”
NATIONAL.INSuRANCEZ.=CO, _
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBH_AR;AM COMPLEX,
144, G_ROA’C:_, B’A.I=~I_C;’AL,Oi.REL,e1.;’
A ~ APPELLANT
(DDT-SRI’;IA.N”.*P:RIS«H’NIA SWAMY, ADV)
SMT..V_N” A Mu.DDAMC’M«,AV””
w/OLATEA APPACH -A
;:\iOW AGED ABOUT 57 YRS
~’~:’R/:AT.ARAMERELAILLAGE & POST
\/’IF?AJF5E.Tz TQ, KODAGU DIST
.- 2 AI jSIJRES}?T
“TVS/O.LAjTE?’APPACHu
A “-«.._NO_W AGED ABOUT 27 YRS
R/ATARAMERY VILLAGE 8: POST
_ VIRAJPET TQ, KODAGU DIST
O “N M APPAIAH (SINCE DECEASED)
BY L R N A SARASU
W/O.LATE APPAIAH
I
appellant contends that as per the decision of the Apex
Court in the Case of SARALA DIXIT 8L ANOTHER vs BALWANT
YADAV AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1996 SC 1274, the
multiplier applicable to the cialmant, who is aged 65 ye_ars is
7 and not 9 as adopted by the Tribunal.
3. The challenge by the appellant
and the Tribunal while adopting themultiplier’hgasfiadtopéted”9it
instead of 7. Therefore, applying the
if we recalculate the loss OfV>C(f.lrl{‘lfilbU;E.lv.OFl toVVtt’he”‘i.._:fa’i’nil{/ that
amount would be Rs.1,68,000:/~—-.– under*vt.his»’§head the
Claimant”l’w’ou:l’id.’ =-er’ltlt’le’dflt’O’iii-l”<Vs.1,68,OOO/- instead of
Rs.2,:6}ieoo'o/-.i
fl; _ the"resu'l'iE, the appeal is allowed in part. The
""colnpens'atlo'ii.g_.awarded 'by the Tribunal is reduced from
."idl~iRs.1,a3,ooo/–. The award of the Tribunal
ls aCi:ord_%'ni_';li,?–', modified.
'Ed/–
iooea