Case: Puttamma &amp; Others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy &amp; Another

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:ThatRamadas, aged about 48 years, was working as a Typesetting Assistant in Computer Section of the Mysore Printers Limited (Deccan Herald). On 27th July, 1999 at about 1.30 a.m. while he was returning home on his scooter bearing Registration No.KA 03/K 7514 onr road, near Mico Software, he met with accident with a Tanker bearing Registration No.KA 05/A 5995 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. On account of the said accident, Ramadas fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Victoria Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries4. His wife and children preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988), claiming compensation of Rs.. The 2nd respondent (Insurance Company) contested the claim. They had not disputed the accident or the insurance coverage. On behalf of the claimant, witnesses were examined including, who was the claimant No.1 and another one Chandrashekar, ans to the accident. Nine documents were led as evidence marked as Exhs.P1 to P9. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Insurance Policy was marked as Exh.R1p.m. After deduction of the Income Tax, Professional Tax and personal expenses from the basic salary it awarded a compensation of Rs.9,03,600/6. On appeal preferred by the claimants, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.. The High Court rounded the age of the deceased as 50 years; applied Rs.8,295/as multiplicand and deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses. The High Court split the multiplier and applied multiplier of 10 for the multiplicand of Rs.8,295/and multiplier of 2 for the multiplicand of Rs.

Reasoning: 64. In the appeal which was filed by the claimants before the High Court, the High Court instead of deciding the just compensation allowed meager enhancement of compensation. In doing so, the High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier system generally used in light of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) case without disclosing any reason. The High Court has also not considered the question of prospect of future increase in salary of the deceased though it noticed that the deceased would have continued in pensionable services for more than 10 years. When the age of the deceased was 48 years at the time of death it wrongly applied multiplier of 10 and not 13 as per decision in Sarla Verma. Thus, we fail to appreciate as to why the High Court chose to apply split multiplier and applied multiplier of 10. We, thus, find that the judgment of the High Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and is fit to be set aside for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting split multiplier method against the law laid down by this Court. In view of our aforesaid finding, we hold that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and hold that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.. They shall also get interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint petition. Respondente Company is directed to pay enhanced/additional compensation and interest to the claimants within a period of three months by getting prepared a demand draft in their name.