In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Dated This the 10 Day of December, 2014 Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Anand
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 24834/2012 (MV) A/W. Miscellaneous First Appeal Cross – Objection No. 100151/2014 In M.F.A. No.24834/2012 : Between : ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 2 nd Floor, Bellad Company, Gokul Road, Bellad & Company, Hubli. Now Represented by its Legal Manager, Bellad Building, 2 nd Floor, Gokul Road, Hubli. … Appellant (By Sri S. K. Kayakamath, Advocate) And : 1. Smt. Iramma W/o. Irappa Shettennavar, Age: 59 years, Occ: Household, & Agriculture, R/o: Kamadhenu, Taluk Kalaghatagi, District Dharwad. 2. Khaza Mainuddin Abdul Khadar Shareghar, Age: 59 Years, Occ: Transport Business, 2 R/o.: Javali Plot, Tipu Nagar, Old Hubli, Hubli - 580 020 District Dharwad. …Respondents (By Sri N.S. Upadhya, Advocate for respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 - served) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 29.10.2011 passed in M.V.C. N o.286/2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, sitting at Kalghatgi, awarding the compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. I.A. No.1/2012 is filed seeking condonation of 214 days delay in filing the appeal. In M.F.A. Cross-Objection No.100151/2014 : Between : Smt. Iramma W/o. Irappa Shettennavar, Age: 59 years, Occ: Household, & Agriculture, R/o: Kamadhenu, Taluk Kalaghatagi, District Dharwad. … Cross-Objector (By Sri N.S. Upadhya, Advocate) 3 And : 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 2 nd Floor, Bellad Company, Gokul Road, Bellad & Company, Hubli. 2. Khaza Mainuddin Abdul Khadar Shareghar, Age: 59 Years, Occ: Transport Business, R/o.: Javali Plot, Tipu Nagar, Old Hubli, Hubli - 580 020 District Dharwad. …Respondents (By Sri S. K. Kayakamath, Advocate for respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 - served) This Cross-Objection in Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and award dated 29.10.2011 passed in M.V.C. No.286/2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, sitting at Kalghatgi, awarding the compensation of Rs.4,28,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. This Miscellaneous First Appeal along with Cross-Objection and application coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following: 4 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant in the appeal is the Insurance Company. The appeal is filed after delay of 214 days. The reasons assigned in the affidavit in support of the application are hardly worth consideration as the said reasons are wholly internal affair of the appellant – Company and would not be relevant insofar as consideration of the delay is concerned. However, the limited ground on which the appeal is filed would warrant consideration. Hence, the delay is condoned. The appeal is admitted. 3. The only ground on which the appeal is filed is to the effect that the parents of the deceased were the claimants. The younger of the parent, namely, the mother was aged 55 at the time of the death of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier ought to have been ‘11’ and not ‘17’, which is the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. Proceeding on the footing that it is the age of the deceased, which would be relevant. Given the fact that the dependency is that the claimants had 5 the benefit of any such income of the deceased during their life time, it is appropriate that the age of the claimants is taken as the appropriate consideration to apply the multiplier. Therefore, the appeal would have to be allowed on that limited ground in reducing the multiplier from ‘17’ to ‘11’. 4. However, the claimant has also filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation. It is in respect of the conventional heads that the claimant seek enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, which ought to be atleast Rs.25,000/-. The loss of love and affection and loss of estate is also not considered. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a global enhancement of Rs.1,00,000/- towards conventional heads. Consequently, though the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ would stand reduced at Rs.1,44,000/- if the multiplier is adopted as ‘11’ instead of ‘17’. Since the claimant is entitled to enhancement, as aforesaid, the difference in the award amount would be in a sum of 6 Rs.64,000/- (Rs.4,28,000/- - Rs.3,64,000/-), which the appellant is entitled. Consequently, the award is modified to hold that the amount under ‘loss of dependency’ would stand reduced to ‘Rs.2,64,000/-’ instead of ‘Rs.4,08,000/-’. In all, the claimants are entitled to ‘Rs.3,64,000/-’ (Rs.2,64,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/) as against ‘Rs.4,28,000/-’. The appeal and cross-objection are therefore allowed in part. 5. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit. Sd/- JUDGE hnm/.