High Court of Karnataka Partly Allows Insurance Company's Appeal and Claimant's Cross-Objections in Motor Accident Compensation Case — Multiplier Applied as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court modified the multiplier from 15 to 18 for age group 30-35, enhancing compensation from Rs.2,97,000 to Rs.3,42,000.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited and cross-objections by the claimant K.B. Shivakumar Swamy against the judgment and award dated 22.08.2008 passed by the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.2405/2007. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, excluding future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The Insurance Company challenged the award, while the claimant sought enhancement. The High Court, after hearing both sides, modified the award by applying the correct multiplier of 18 as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, instead of 15 applied by the Tribunal. The court also upheld the award of Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses. The appeal was partly allowed, and the cross-objections were allowed in part, resulting in an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,42,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Compensation - Multiplier - Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal applied multiplier 15 instead of 18 as per Second Schedule for age group 30-35 - Held that the correct multiplier is 18 as per the Second Schedule (Para 4).

B) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Medical Expenses - Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses - Held that the same is justified and not excessive (Para 5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier and awarding compensation for future medical expenses?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed; cross-objections allowed in part. Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,97,000 to Rs.3,42,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till deposit.

Law Points

  • Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
  • Section 173(1)
  • Second Schedule
  • Multiplier
  • Compensation
  • Future Medical Expenses
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (KAR) (03) 14

M.F.A.No.1337/2009 (MV) and M.F.A.Crob.41/2011

2013-03-19

Aravind Kumar

Sri A.M. Venkatesh for Appellant, Sri A. Dharmesh for M/s. Sharath and Associates for R-1, Sri Ramesh T. for R-2

M/s. National Insurance Company Limited

K.B. Shivakumar Swamy and C. Shivakumar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Motor accident compensation claim

Remedy Sought

Insurance company sought reduction of compensation; claimant sought enhancement

Filing Reason

Dispute over multiplier and future medical expenses in compensation award

Previous Decisions

Tribunal awarded Rs.2,97,000 with interest at 6% p.a. excluding Rs.20,000 for future medical expenses

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier 15 instead of 18? Whether the award of Rs.20,000 for future medical expenses is justified?

Submissions/Arguments

Insurance company argued that the multiplier should be 15 as per Second Schedule for age group 30-35. Claimant argued that the multiplier should be 18 and future medical expenses should be enhanced.

Ratio Decidendi

The correct multiplier for age group 30-35 as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is 18, not 15. Future medical expenses of Rs.20,000 are justified.

Judgment Excerpts

The Tribunal has committed an error in applying multiplier 15 instead of 18 as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The award of Rs.20,000 towards future medical expenses is justified and not excessive.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed before MACT, Bangalore; award dated 22.08.2008; appeal by Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of MV Act; cross-objections by claimant under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 173(1), Second Schedule
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 22
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Compromise Decree in Lok Adalat for Abuse of Process. Court finds that a compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat without proper verification of parties and without ensuring free consent is a nullity and liable to be set...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Partly Allows Insurance Company's Appeal and Claimant's Cross-Objections in Motor Accident Compensation Case — Multiplier Applied as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court modified the multiplier from 15 ...