Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Reserved On: 24.04.202 vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 22 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
...
RP no.44/2021
Reserved on: 24.04.2021
Pronounced on: 22.06.2021
Saeeda Begum and others
....... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr M.Amin Tibatbakal, Advocate
Versus
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co and others
.........Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
1. Review of judgement dated 18th March 2021, passed by this Court,
partly allowing Appeal, being MA no.49/2018, titled Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Co. v. Saeeda Begum and others, is sought for in
instant petition on the grounds tailored therein.
2. Learned counsel appearing for review petitioners has stated that this
Court while passing judgement under review, has not made mention of
the case-law/judgements cited by him during the course of
argumentation of the appeal. It is also contended that split multiplier
made use of by this Court is not applicable to the case in hand. The
following are the judgements that are stated to have been relied upon
by learned counsel for review petitioner:
1) Bhogireddi & ors v. Mani Muthu Pandi & ors, ACJ 2017 SC 1391.
2) Sarladevi v. Divisional Manager, Sundaram Insurance Ins. Co. &
anr, ACJ 2014 SC 2391.
3) Puttamma v. K.L.Naryan Reddy, ACJ 2014 SC 526
4) OIC v. S. Venkateswari & ors, ACJ 2018 Madras HC (DB) 261.
5) Reliance Insurance Co. v. M. Jaya Lakashmamma & ors, ACJ 2018
Karnataka 1730.
RP no.58/2021
6) Manini and another v. Premanand Bhopal Kamle and another, ACJ
2019 (IV) Karnataka 2434.
7) OIC v. Randhir Kaur, ACJ 2019 (i) P&H 283
3. It would be appropriate to go through the judgements relied upon by
learned counsel for review petitioners, so as to see as to whether any
case is made out by petitioners to review the judgement.
4. The first judgement relied upon by learned counsel for review petitioner
is Bhogireddi & ors v. Mani Muthu Pandi & ors, ACJ 2017 SC 1391 .
In this case, the High Court had applied multiplier of '8', instead of
'11'. The Supreme Court held that multiplier of '11' was to be applied.
The said judgement does not apply to the case in hand.
5. Insofar as second judgement rendered in the case of Sarladevi v.
Divisional Manager, Sundaram Insurance Ins. Co. & anr, ACJ 2014 SC
2391, is concerned, it has direct bearing on the case in hand. So, it needs
to be discussed here. In the said case, the Supreme Court has viewed
that High Court erred in not considering the principles laid down in the
case of Sarla Verma 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) qua reducing compensation
by adopting the split multiplier. The High Court had reduced total
compensation and awarded compensation on account of loss of
dependency in the amount of Rs.15,09,750/- by adopting split
multiplier, but the Supreme Court applied multiplier of '8' and
enhanced compensation on account of Loss of Dependency to
Rs.36,58,248/-
6. In Puttamma and others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, ACJ
2014 SC 526, relied upon by learned counsel for review petitioners, the
Supreme Court has said that for determination of compensation in
RP no.58/2021
motor accident claims under Section 166, multiplier method is always
being followed and that the Act does not envisage or provide
application of split multiplier. After saying this, the Supreme Court
relied upon the judgement in K. R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative
Officer, 2011 ACJ 743 (SC), in which it was held that the High Court
departed from the multiplier and used split multiplier and accordingly
set-aside the judgement of the High Court as being perverse. The
Supreme Court held that High Court should not apply split multiplier
in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision in the case
of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) as affirmed in the case of Reshma
Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC).
7. The judgement in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. S.
Venkateswari and others, 2018 ACJ 261, rendered by the Madras High
Court, has followed the law laid down in the case of Putamma (supra)
as regards split multiplier.
8. The judgement in the case of Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.
Jayalakshmamma ACJ 2018 Karnataka 1730, rendered by the
Karnataka High Court, has followed the law laid down in Puttamma's
(supra).
9. Again, in Manini v. Premanand Bhopal Kamle, ACJ 2019 (IV)
Karnataka 2434, law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Putamma (supra) has been followed qua split multiplier. So is true
about OIC v. Randhir Kaur, ACJ 2019 (i) P&H 283.
10. From the above judgments, particularly in the cases of Saraladevi and
Puttamma, it is now well settled law that split multiplier is not to be
RP no.58/2021
applied as had been applied by this Court while rendering judgement
dated 18th March 2021, passed by this Court, being MA no.49/2018,
titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. v. Saeeda Begum and others
and, therefore, same requires to be reviewed.
11. For the reasons discussed above, review petition is allowed and
judgement dated 18th March 2021, passed by this Court, partly allowing
Appeal, being MA no.49/2018, titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co. v. Saeeda Begum and others is reviewed and as a corollary thereof,
Appeal, being MA no.49/2018 is dismissed and impugned Award is
upheld.
12. Insurance Company shall pay the award amount along with interest as
granted by the Tribunal, if not already paid, to the claimants.
13. Copy of this order be sent down.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul)
Judge
Srinagar
22.06.2021
Ajaz Ahmad, PS
Whether approved for reporting? No
