Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Gangambike on 23 February, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3880 OF 2015(MV-D)
BETWEEN :
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
TGMA BUILDING,
J.C. ROAD, TUMKUR
(POLICY NO.423201/31/2011/17256
VALID FROM 25.01.11 TO 24/1/12)
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANYLTD.
NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE-25
REP BY ITS DY. MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. P B RAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SMT. GANGAMBIKE
W/O LATE MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O ARLEPETE MAGADI,
MAGADI TALUK
2. SMT. RUDRAMMA
W/O LATE JAYADEVAIAH
2
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
(DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2022)
3. R.KIRAN
S/O RAJKUMAR
KIRAN TRANSPORT,
MANDIPET, TUMKUR
(OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING
REG NO.KA-06-A-1115)
4. SMT. ALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
5. CHANDUMAHESH
W/O LATE MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
OORUKERE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK
6. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT ARALEPTE, MAGADI
7. SMT. ANITHA
W/O RENUKAPPA
D/O LATE MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O MUDIGERE VILLAGE
BELLAVI HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. NABEEL, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.V.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR L, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 - R2 IS DELETED;
R4 TO R7 - SERVED)
3
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.1.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1396/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMKUR AND EXONERATE THE
LIABILITY FASTENED ON THE APPELLANT INSURANCE CO., AND
ALSO REDUCE THE COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the
judgment and award dated 30.01.2015 in
M.V.C No.1396/2011 passed by the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge and MACT, Tumkur.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred
as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri P.B.Raju, learned advocate for the
appellant - insurer, Shri Nabeel, learned advocate
appearing for the first respondent and Shri L. Chandra
Shekar, learned advocate for third respondent.
4. Shri P.B.Raju, for the insurer submits that the
deceased was working in KSRTC and aged 56 years as on
the date of the accident. In normal circumstances, victim
would attain the age of superannuation in the next two
years and retire. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in
awarding 15% future prospects. The Tribunal ought to
have applied split multiplier in this case.
5. Learned advocate for the claimant placing reliance
on the decision in the case of R.Valli & Ors. Vs. Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.1, submits that
the Tribunal has rightly chosen the multiplier taking the
age of the deceased at the time of death. As held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the remaining years of service cannot
be considered. He is right in his submission.
6. In view of the law laid down in R. Valli, this appeal
must fail.
7. Shri P.B.Raju, learned Advocate submits that the
insurer has deposited 75% of compensation awarded
before the Tribunal. He undertakes to deposit the balance
Civil Appeal No.1269 of 2022 decided on 10.02.2022 (paragraph No.5)
within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.
8. The Registry shall transmit this statutory deposit to
the Tribunal for disbursement as per its directions.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RB
