High Court of Karnataka Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Error in Multiplier Application. Tribunal's use of multiplier '13' for a 61-year-old claimant was contrary to Sarla Verma v. DTC guidelines; correct multiplier is '9'.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 12:32:12

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Special XI Additional Judge and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-12) in MVC No.3314/2009. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.6,73,839/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization to the claimant, S. Hanumanthappa (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives), who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The accident, injuries, and liability of the insurance company were not in dispute. The sole issue was the multiplier applied by the Tribunal for computing loss of future income due to disability. The claimant was aged 61 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal applied multiplier '13', whereas according to the settled principle in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier for the age group 61-65 is '9'. The appellant insurance company contended that the multiplier should be '9'. The High Court agreed, holding that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier '13'. Consequently, the High Court recalculated the compensation: loss of future income was reduced from Rs.2,34,000/- to Rs.1,62,000/- (Rs.3,000/- per month x 12 x 9 x 50% disability). The total compensation was reduced from Rs.6,73,839/- to Rs.5,73,839/-. The interest rate of 6% per annum was maintained. The appeal was allowed in part, and the award was modified accordingly.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier Determination - Loss of Future Income - Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal applied multiplier '13' for a claimant aged 61 years, which is contrary to the settled principle in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, where the multiplier for age 61-65 is '9'. The High Court corrected the multiplier to '9' and recalculated compensation accordingly. (Paras 3-5)

B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation for Injuries - Medical Expenses and Pain and Suffering - Sections 166, 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,73,839/- including medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, etc. The High Court, after correcting the multiplier, reduced the total compensation to Rs.5,73,839/- with interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 4-6)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier '13' instead of '9' for computing loss of future income due to disability, given the claimant's age of 61 years.

Final Decision

Appeal allowed in part. Compensation reduced from Rs.6,73,839/- to Rs.5,73,839/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

Law Points

Motor Vehicles Act
1988
Section 173(1)
Multiplier determination
Sarla Verma v. DTC guidelines
Compensation for injuries
Interest rate

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:48448

MFA No. 9508 of 2013 (MV)

2024-11-26

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

NC: 2024:KHC:48448

Sri. Ravishankar C.R for appellant; Sri. Thyagaraja S for respondent 1 (A to D)

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

S. Hanumanthappa (since dead by LRs) and Smt. G. Anusuyamma

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against award of compensation by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

Remedy Sought

Insurance company sought reduction of compensation awarded by Tribunal.

Filing Reason

Insurance company challenged the multiplier applied by Tribunal for computing loss of future income.

Previous Decisions

Tribunal awarded Rs.6,73,839/- with interest at 6% p.a. in MVC No.3314/2009.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier '13' instead of '9' for a claimant aged 61 years?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, multiplier for age 61-65 is '9', not '13'. Respondent did not contest the multiplier issue.

Ratio Decidendi

For computing loss of future income due to disability in motor accident claims, the multiplier must be determined based on the age of the claimant as per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121. For a claimant aged 61 years, the appropriate multiplier is '9', not '13'.

Judgment Excerpts

The question to be considered in this appeal is with regard to the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier for the age group of 61 to 65 years is '9'. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier '13'.

Procedural History

Claimant S. Hanumanthappa filed MVC No.3314/2009 before MACT, Bangalore seeking compensation for injuries in a motor accident. Tribunal awarded Rs.6,73,839/- on 22.03.2013. Insurance company appealed under Section 173(1) of MV Act before High Court. During pendency, claimant died and his LRs were brought on record. High Court delivered judgment on 26.11.2024.