High Court of Karnataka Partially Allows Insurance Appeal and Claimant Cross-Objection in Motor Accident Compensation Case — Multiplier Applied as per Second Schedule of MV Act. The court modified the award by applying the correct multiplier based on the claimant's age, enhancing compensation from Rs.2,97,000 to Rs.3,17,000.

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 a cross-objection 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% p.a. excluding future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The Insurance Company challenged the award on the ground that the multiplier applied was incorrect, while the claimant sought enhancement of compensation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, modified the award by applying the correct multiplier as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,17,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. The court held that the multiplier should be based on the age of the claimant, not the age of the deceased, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Compensation - Multiplier Method - Second Schedule - The court considered the correct multiplier to be applied for computing loss of future earnings due to permanent disability - Held that the multiplier should be as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the age of the claimant (Paras 4-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier and computing compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal and cross-objections are partly allowed. The award is modified to Rs.3,17,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till deposit. Insurance company to deposit the amount within four weeks.

Law Points

  • Motor Accident Compensation
  • Multiplier Method
  • Second Schedule
  • MV Act
  • Section 173(1)
  • Order 41 Rule 22 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (KAR) (03) 38

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

Appeal against award of compensation in motor accident claim

Remedy Sought

Insurance company sought reduction of compensation; claimant sought enhancement

Filing Reason

Dispute over multiplier applied by Tribunal

Previous Decisions

Tribunal awarded Rs.2,97,000 with 6% interest excluding future medical expenses of Rs.20,000

Issues

Whether the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was correct? Whether the compensation awarded is just and proper?

Submissions/Arguments

Insurance company argued that multiplier should be 17 as per Second Schedule based on claimant's age Claimant argued for enhancement of compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The multiplier for computing loss of future earnings due to permanent disability should be as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the age of the claimant.

Judgment Excerpts

The multiplier to be adopted is as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 17.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed before MACT, Bangalore; award dated 22.08.2008; appeal and cross-objection filed before High Court.

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
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Election Result and Declares Appellant Mayor in Municipal Election Due to Presiding Officer's Malpractices. The Court held that the High Court erred in not granting interim relief and the presiding officer's actions in invalidat...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Partially Allows Insurance Appeal and Claimant Cross-Objection in Motor Accident Compensation Case — Multiplier Applied as per Second Schedule of MV Act. The court modified the award by applying the correct multiplier based ...