Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 620 (KAR)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. JENNY BAI

2006-07-27

CHIDANANDA ULLAL, V.JAGANNATHAN

body2006
V. JAGANNATHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the insurance company is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 4,08,000 to the claimants following the death of one dayananda. ( 2 ) AS the appeal by the insurance company is with regard to the quantum of compensation, we enquired with the learned counsel as to whether permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was obtained. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company that though the application was filed seeking permission to contest on all issues under section 170 of said Act, the Tribunal did not pass any order which is clear from the order sheet. ( 3 ) WE find support for the above submission from the observation made by the tribunal at para 4 of its judgment. Therefore, it is clear that the insurance company did file application seeking permission to contest on all issues, but the Tribunal has not passed any order on the said application. It is imperative on the part of Tribunal to pass an order on the said application before the matter was disposed of finally. Therefore, for the fault of the Tribunal, the insurance company should not suffer and we feel it appropriate to pass an order at this stage allowing the said application filed under section 170 of Motor Vehicles act and we order accordingly. ( 4 ) SO far as the quantum is concerned, the only question for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier 16, in the case on hand while working out the amount under the head loss of dependency. Since the claimant is the mother of the deceased and her age was 48 years at the relevant time, the Tribunal should have taken the age of the claimant for consideration and not the age of the deceased and, therefore, the proper multiplier will be 12 and not 16. Applying the correct multiplier 12, the amount under the head loss of dependency will now work out to rs. 2,88,000 and this we substitute in place of Rs. 3,84,000. Consequently, the award amount gets reduced as mentioned above and the appeal filed by insurance company is allowed in part and the compensation under other heads remain unaltered. Applying the correct multiplier 12, the amount under the head loss of dependency will now work out to rs. 2,88,000 and this we substitute in place of Rs. 3,84,000. Consequently, the award amount gets reduced as mentioned above and the appeal filed by insurance company is allowed in part and the compensation under other heads remain unaltered. ( 5 ) THE rate of interest, however, shall be at 6 per cent per annum throughout. ( 6 ) THE amount deposited in this court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal and the excess amount deposited by the insurance company shall be refunded to it by the Tribunal. Appeal partly allowed.