- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7796-DB MFA No. 6098/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6098/2021 (MV-D) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, KRUSHI BHAVAN BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE , NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560027 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. B. LAVANYA W/O LATE B ANAND NAIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. SRI D ROOPESH NAIK S/O LATE B ANAND NAIK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 3. KUMARI B BHAVYA D/O LATE B ANAND NAIK AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT B LAVANYA Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7796-DB MFA No. 6098/2021 RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 1744-9-4-1 NEHRU NAGARA MADANPALLI TOWN 517325 DIST CHITTOOR ANDHRA PRADESH 4. SHRI KAMALA ISHWARACHARI S/O PRABHAKAR R/O NO. 3-85, BASANIKONDA MADANAPALLI TOWN 517235 DISTRICT CHITTOOR ANDHRA PRADESH …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 R3- MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 10.1.2025) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7466/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM. SMALL CAUSES COURT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-8), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 39,72,324/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 7.4.2021 passed in MVC No.7466/2018 by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7796-DB MFA No. 6098/2021 Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City (SCCH-8)1. 2. The sole ground urged by learned Counsel Smt.Manjula N.Tejaswi, appearing for the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal ought to have applied the split multiplier while awarding the compensation having regard to the fact that the deceased who was a driver working at the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation2 was aged 54 years and that he would have retired at the age of 60 years. 3. It is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Jayasree & ors., v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.,3 relied upon by the learned Counsel Smt.Sushmitha G, for the claimants, was considering a challenge made by the claimants to the adoption of split multiplier by the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a specific question with regard to the application of split multiplier by the High Court and noticing its earlier judgments in the cases of Sarla Verma (Smt) And 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘APSRTC’ 3 AIR 2021 SC 5218 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7796-DB MFA No. 6098/2021 Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another4 and Reshma Kumari & Ors., v. Madan Mohan and Anr.,5 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “in the absence of any specific reason and evidence on record, the Tribunal or the Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per the decision of Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma4 as affirmed in Reshma Kumari5. 4. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.Valli v. T.N.State Transport Corpn. Ltd.,6 while considering the challenge made by the claimants to the application of split multiplier by the High Court, noticed that the judgments wherein split multiplier was adopted were rendered prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi7 and held that the multiplier method is required to be followed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant seeks to distinguish the facts of the case in N.Jayasree3, having regard to the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121. 5 (2013) 9 SCC 65 6 (2022) 5 SCC 107 7 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7796-DB MFA No. 6098/2021 Supreme Court as noticed above, the contention put forth by the appellant is ex facie untenable and is accordingly rejected. 6. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) Appeal is dismissed. ii) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32