Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Vithabai & Ors

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4948 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15480 of 2010)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant.

Versus

Vithabai & Ors. .....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

Though served, none appeared for the respondents.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant - Insurance Company has challenged the validity

of the Judgment dated 1st July, 2009 delivered by the Karnataka High

Court, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in MFA No. 30178 of 2009.

2 4. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the respondents-claimants,

who had filed MVC No. 359 of 2006 before the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Bidar have been awarded higher amount of

compensation. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation,

the insurance company has filed the appeal.

5. The Tribunal was pleased to award Rs. 1,76,000/- by way of

compensation with interest thereon @ 6% to the claimants - the widow

and children of Vithal who had died in a motor accident. After

considering the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal

had come to a conclusion that average income of the deceased was

Rs. 5,000/- per month. On the basis of the said income and looking to

the relevant factors, including age of the deceased which was 56

years, the Tribunal had considered multiplier of `8' for determining the

amount of compensation. The Tribunal had also considered the fact

that the deceased was riding his cycle in the centre of the road and,

therefore, he was also held to be negligent to the extent of 50%.

6. An appeal was filed before the High Court by the claimants and

after hearing the concerned advocates and looking to the facts of the

3

case, the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to

Rs. 4,86,000/-. The High Court enhanced the compensation because it

found that there was no evidence with regard to contributory

negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the amount of compensation

should not have been reduced. Moreover, the High Court increased the

multiplier from `8' to `11', as the age of the deceased was 56 years, by

relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of Gulam Khader vs.

United India Insurance Ltd. reported in 2001 (1) KLJ 340 .

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance

company vehemently submitted that the High Court was in error while

increasing the multiplier to `11' from `8'. She submitted that the High

Court did not consider the law laid down in the case of Sarla

Verma(Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the multiplier used in the Second

Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. She also submitted that in view of

the judgment delivered in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the High

Court was in error in considering the law laid down by the Karnataka

High Court in the case of Gulam Khader (Supra). She further

submitted that looking to the age of the deceased, the multiplier, as per

4

the aforestated schedule should have been `8' and, therefore, the

Tribunal had not committed any error in using `8' as a multiplier. In

view of the said fact, the High Court ought not to have increased the

multiplier to `11'.

8. After considering the submission made by the learned counsel and

looking to the law laid down by this Court and in view of the fact that

the age of the deceased was 56 and, therefore, taking notice of the

multiplier indicated in the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, we

are of the view that the High Court was not justified in increasing the

multiplier from `8' to `11'. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right

while considering `8' as a multiplier. We do no find any other error in

the judgment delivered by the High Court and , therefore, we are of

the view that instead of `11', the multiplier of `8' should be used while

calculating the amount of compensation. In view of the said fact, a

sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- shall be reduced on account of reduction in

multiplier. While considering `11' as the multiplier, the High Court

had determined the amount of compensation towards loss of

dependency as Rs. 4,40,000/- which is hereby reduced to Rs. 3,20,000/-

as multiplier has been reduced from `11' to `8'.

5 9. Except the above modification, no other interference is required

in the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, the amount of compensation

shall be recalculated and paid to the respondents-claimants with

interest as directed by the Tribunal. The direction, as regards the

depositing of the amount with a nationalized bank, shall continue.

10. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent but without any

order as to costs.

..................................................J.

(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

.................................................J.

(ANIL R. DAVE)

New Delhi

July 5, 2011.