Karnataka High Court

Damayanthi P Shettigar vs Mr Jayanth Kumar on 10 October, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                           BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                  M.F.A.NO.5270/2014 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.     DAMAYANTHI P. SHETTIGAR,
       W/O PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTIGAR,
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

2.     SUKANYA,
       D/O PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTIGAR,
       AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

3.     SUREKHA,
       D/O PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTIGAR,
       AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

4.     SUPRIYA,
       D/O PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTIGAR,
       AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

       ALL ARE R/A "SUKAPRIYA NILAYA",
       CHELLAR ROAD, 4TH CROSS,
       KARKALA, KARKALA TALUK,
       DK DISTRICT-574104.
                                              ...APPELLANTS

          (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MR. JAYANTH KUMAR,
       S/O GANAPATHI,
       MAJOR,
       R/AT H.NO.2-99,
       NEAR BHAVISYA NAGAR ENCLAVE,
                              2



     MOODUSHEDDE, VAMANJOOR,
     THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, MANGALORE,
     DK DISTRICT-575014.

2.   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     SALDHANA BUILDING,
     BRIDGE ROAD, BALMATTA,
     MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT-575001.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

3.   MR. RAJESH,
     S/O SHEENA KOTIAN,
     MAJOR,
     R/A BELLIBETTU HOUSE,
     GURUPURA POST,
     MANGALORE TALUK,
     DK DISTRICT-575008.

4.   NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     EMJAYS COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
     NETRAVATHI BUILDING,
     NEAR JUICE JUNCTION ,
     BALMATTA, MANGALORE TALUK,
     DK DISTRICT-575001.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

        (BY SRI S. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2,
      NOTICE TO R-1, R-3 AND R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH
             VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2015)

     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2014 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1290/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, D.K.,
MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION       AND     SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3



                       JUDGMENT

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the

consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final

disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 15.04.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1290/2008 on the

file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Member,

MACT IV, D.K., Mangalore ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning

the quantum of compensation.

4. In this appeal, the claimants, who are the wife and

children of the deceased have contended that the deceased was

working as a Manager in State Bank of Mysore and have

produced the document of Ex.P.12, salary certificate to show

that he was getting salary of Rs.33,421/- per month and out of

that Rs.5,000/- was deducted towards income tax and Rs.200/-

towards professional tax and after deducting the same, it comes

to Rs.28,221/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would

vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in

applying the split multiplier. The learned counsel submits that

the compensation awarded under other heads are very meager

and under the head loss of love and affection only Rs.30,000/-

was awarded and he was an inpatient for a period of five months

15 days and after prolonged treatment, he succumbed to the

injuries. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits

that the Tribunal has rightly taken the split multiplier because he

was aged about 54 years and remaining service was only six

years and hence applied the split multiplier and awarded

compensation and hence it does not require interference of this

Court.

7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2

and also on perusal of the material available on record, the

points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation?

      (ii)    What order?


Point No.(i):

8. Having heard the respective learned counsel, it is an

appeal with regard to questioning of quantum of compensation.

In terms of Ex.P.12 salary certificate, his gross salary was

Rs.33,421/- per month and income tax of Rs.5,000/- was

deducted every month and apart from that, Rs.200/- was

deducted towards professional tax and after deducting the same

it comes to Rs.28,221/-. The very contention of the learned

counsel for respondent No.2 that the Tribunal rightly considered

the split multiplier and it does not require any interference,

cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of R. VALLI AND OTHERS v. TAMIL NADU STATE

TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED reported in (2022) 5

SCC 107, wherein the Apex Court categorically held that

applying of the split multiplier is erroneous. Hence, the

contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted with

regard to split multiplier.

9. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.19,21,952/- towards loss of dependency. Now taking the

income of the deceased at Rs.28,221/- per month, the loss of

dependency is calculated as under:

     Monthly income                  -    Rs.28,221/-

     Add: 15% towards
          Future prospects           -    Rs.4,233/-
                                          --------------
                                     -    Rs.32,454,/-
               th
     Less: 1/4 towards
            Personal expenses        -    Rs.8,114/-
                                          --------------
                                     -    Rs.24,340/-
                                          -------------------
     Loss of dependency              =    Rs.32,12,880/-
     (Rs.24,340/- x 12 x 11)              --------------------

10. Apart from that, the wife and three children are

entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.1,60,000/-

under conventional head. The claimants are also entitled for an

amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head loss of estate and funeral

expenses.

11. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the

deceased was an inpatient for a period of five months 15 days

and original medical bills are also produced before the Tribunal

and the Tribunal considered the same and awarded an amount of

Rs.2,16,370/- towards medical expenses and hence the very

contention of the Insurance Company that he has got the benefit

of medical reimbursement cannot be accepted when the original

medical bills are produced before the Tribunal itself. The

medical expenses is awarded based on the documentary

evidence and hence the same does not require any interference

of this Court.

12. The deceased was hospitalized for a period of five

months 15 days and to show the same, the claimants have

produced Ex.P.13 discharge bill, wherein it is mentioned that he

was an inpatient from 02.03.2008 to 18.08.2008 and hence the

claimants are also entitled for compensation under the head

conveyance, food and nourishment and transportation. Having

considered the prolonged period of treatment, it is appropriate to

award an amount of Rs.75,000/- under the said head.

13. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of

Rs.36,97,250/- as against Rs.22,26,000/-.

Point No.(ii):

14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.04.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1290/2008, is modified granting compensation of Rs.36,97,250/- as against Rs.22,26,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

(iii) The appellant No.1 being the wife of the deceased shall be entitled for 40% of the compensation amount and the appellant Nos.2 to 4 being the children are entitled for 20% each of the compensation amount.