State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Alamelamma vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 19 February, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Complaint Case No. CC/113/2018 ( Date of Filing : 09 Mar 2018 ) 1. Smt.Alamelamma w/o Late Nanjundappa, Aged about 64 years, R/a NO.97, Opp. Old Govt. School, floor mill road, Vasanthapura, Subramanyapura post, Bangalore-61 2. Smt.Padma W/o Late Manjesh, Aged about 32 years, R/a NO.97, Opp. Old Govt. School, floor mill road, Vasanthapura, Subramanyapura post, Bangalore-61 3. Chi. Vishal Raj S/o Late Manjesh,Minor, Rep. by natural guardin his mother Smt.Padma, W/o Late Manjesh,R/a NO.97, Opp. Old Govt. School,floor mill road, Vasanthapura,Subramanyapura post, Bangalore-61 4. Kumari Ankitha D/o Late Manjesh, Aged about 5 years, Minor, Rep. by natural guardin his mother Smt.Padma, W/o Late Manjesh, R/a NO.97, Opp. Old Govt. School, floor mill road, Vasanthapura, Subramanyapura post, Bangalore-61 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Rep. by its Chairman/ Managing Director, 3rd floor, Petroleum House, 17, Jemshedji Tata road, Mumbai-400020, Maharastra 2. Chief Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Whitefiled road, Mahadevapura, Bangalore-560061 3. Sugam Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor, No.56, 1st Main, 1st block, Vasanth Vallabanagar, Subramanyapura post, Bangalore-560061 4. United Insurance Co. Ltd. No.24, Whites road, Chennai-600014 Tamilnadu ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 19 Feb 2024 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing:09.03.2018 Date of Disposal:19.02.2024 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 PRESENT Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.113/2018 ORDER
BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: PRL. DIST. & SESSION JUDGE (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed U/s 17 of CPA, 1986 to award compensation of Rs.94,59,934.25/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment.
The facts in brief as stated by complainant Nos.1 to 4 would be stated as follows:
The Complainant No.1 is a consumer of OP1 since 30.09.2009, as her LPG consumer No.603945 is in force and active. Mr.Manjesh, her son was aged about 37 years and his wife Smt.Padma, was aged about 28 years. Mr.Manjesh and Smt.Padma had 02 children by name Chi.Vishal Raj and Kum.Ankitha. The wife of Mr.Manjesh and her 02 children are complainant Nos.2 to 4, as complainant Nos.3 and 4 are minors, are represented by their natural guardian mother complainant No.2. It is unfortunate to note herein that Smt.Padma/complainant No.2 also died during pendency of this complaint on 15.11.2022, since complainant Nos.3 and 4 are her children are already on record as complainant Nos.3 and 4 and their grandmother is first complainant is already on record is represented as guardian, is recorded by this Commission.
They have stated Mr.Manjesh, his wife Smt.Padma and their 02 children are living under common roof in a house belongs to complainant No.1/Smt.Alamelamma. She is the consumer of OP1 in respect of LPG supply since 30.09.2009. The Son of consumer, her daughter-in-law and their 02 children are beneficiaries being members of family residing in a common house. That on 17.03.2016, Mr.Manjesh called OP3 to resolve the problem with cylinder, which was not working properly and at about 9:30am OP3 had sent their mechanic to look into the cylinder and he tried to set right the problem and lit the burner, as a result, cylinder blasted and in the said accident Mr.Manjesh and his wife Smt.Padma and the mechanic were of seriously injured and due to the force of the blast, their residential house was extensively damaged, asbestos roof was collapsed, walls of the building cracked, household articles including TV, Set top box, Cooking utensils and furniture's were damaged. Immediately Mr.Manjesh and his wife Smt.Padma were taken to hospital for treatment. Mr.Manjesh succumbed to burn injuries on 20.03.2016 while in treatment however Smt.Padma was treated in hospital as an inpatient till 09.05.2016. Subramanyapura Police, Bengaluru registered a Crime Case No.164/2016. Complainant No.2 Smt.Padma received 33% of burn injuries and they are considered as 02nd degree burn injuries. The accident was occurred due to mal-functioning of cylinder unit supplied by OP3, which was manufactured by OP Nos.1 and 2 and the OP4 is an insurer.
As against the claim of complainant No.1 towards damages caused to her house and articles @ Rs.9,50,965.21/-, OP2 has settled for Rs.5,40,000/-.
They have stated Complainant No.1 has lost his son Mr.Manjesh, while complainant No.3 and 4 have lost their loving father and they have also lost his estate, yet no amount of compensation is paid by none of the OPs, despite issuance of legal notices. It is stated at the time of death, Mr.Manjesh was aged about 37 years and he would have earned at least for another 30 years.
Rs.1,26,553/- was spent towards medical expenses of Mr.Manjesh and Rs.3,23,381.25/- for his wife Smt.Padma. They have sustained loss of property to an extent of Rs.3,50,000/-. They have also sustained loss of dependency. As such sought for award of compensation at Rs.94,59,954.25/- minus Rs.5,40,000/- is paid already to complainant No.1 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till realization.
This complaint is received on 09.03.2018. OP Nos.1 to 4 are served notice of the complaint, while OP3 is placed exparte, since no version is filed by OP Nos.1 and 2, however on 31.10.2018 version of OP4 is filed, OP4 being the insurer of OP Nos.1 and 2 had contested the complaint, contending that complaint is not maintainable as there is no negligence on the part of OP4. OP Nos.2 and 3 have settled the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy and as per IRDA rules claim settled at Rs.5,40,000/- in favour of complainant No.1. The claim of complainants at Rs.94,59,934.25/- is highly excessive and exorbitant is sought to have wrongful gain without any basis. The Insurance policy issued infavour of OP Nos.1 and 2 is for the safety, for the loss suffered and not for making unlawful enrichment. The Complainants are not entitled to get compensation as claimed along with interest @ 18% p.a. until the realization.
In view of rival contentions of complainants and OP4, since OP Nos.1 and 2 have failed to file their version while OP3 is placed exparte, Commission held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence of complainant Nos.1 along with Ex.C1 to Ex.C23 and on the contrary OP4 fails to submit affidavit evidence and documents thereon in support of version. In such circumstances, on closure of enquiry, Commission heard learned counsels on record for complainants and OP4.
Now the points that arise for consideration of the Commission would be:
Whether complainant No.1 has proved the alleged rendering of deficiency in service on the part of OPs ?
Does she prove Mr.Manjesh N, is her son and son of Late Nanjundappa, is a member of her family residing in the place of accident?
Does she prove deceased complainant No.2/Smt.Padma is W/o her son Mr.Manjesh. N and complainant Nos.3 and 4 are their children residing in the place of accident?
Does she prove death of her son Mr.Manjesh was due to LPG Gas Cylinder blast occurred at 9:30am on 17.03.2016 and as a result he circum the burn injuries on 30.03.2016 ?
Does she prove death of Smt.Padma W/o Late Manjesh. N complainant No.2 on 15.11.2022 during pendency of complaint in consequence of burn injuries sustained by her in the said accident?
Does OPs have justified in settling the whole claim at Rs.5,40,000/-?
For what amount of compensation complainant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are entitled to?
The findings are recorded as below:
Point No.1 to 4: In the affirmative.
Point No.5: In the negative.
Point no.6: Not justified, since they have to settle the claim proportionate to the special and general damages suffered by them.
Point No.7: As per final order for the following:
REASONS On point no.1 to 5: In order to avoid repetition of certain facts and circumstances found in the enquiry held by this Commission, it would be convenient for the us to take all these points together for discussion and determination to arrive at a right conclusion.
It is found from enquiry, one Smt.Alamelamma, W/o Late Nanjundappa, aged about 64 years, has raised Consumer Complaint U/s 17 of CPA, 1986 along with her daughter-in-law Smt.Padma, W/o Late Manjesh N, aged about 32 years and her minor grand children Chi.Vishal Raj and Kum.Ankitha, claiming compensation from OP Nos.1 to 4 for rendering deficiency of services. It is not in dispute that Smt.Alamelamma, is a LPG consumer with consumer No.603945, since 30.09.2009. It is also not in dispute that OP3 is a distributor and OP nos.1 and 2 had distributed LPG Gas Cylinder to residence of complainant No.1, had sent a mechanic on 17.03.2016 as called to resolve the problem with the cylinder which was not working properly, which came to be blasted after mechanic tried to lit the burner and its impact her residential house was extensively damaged, the asbestos roof was collapsed, walls of the building cracked, household articles including TV, Set Top Box, Cooking Utensils and Furniture's were extensively damaged and the house became un-habitable. In this blast accident, Mr.Manjesh N son of complainant No.1 and his wife Smt.Padma, had received severe burn injuries, were shifted to hospital, while Mr.Manjesh succumb to burn injuries on 20.03.2016. He died within 03 days from the date of cylinder blast accident, which in fact is not disputed.
Smt.Padma, his wife had taken treatment as an inpatient from 17.03.2016 to 09.05.2016 and she too dies during the course of enquiry. It is quite natural as a consequence of cylinder blast accident in the house of Smt.Alamelamma, jurisdictional police registered a Cr.No.164/2016 on receiving information from another son of complainant no.1. Smt.Alamelamma in her complaint and affidavit evidence reiterated contents of complaint that her daughter-in-law Smt.Padma, had received 33% of burn injury of 2nd degree. It is unfortunate that OP Nos.1 and 2 having been represented by learned counsel, failed to submit their version for the reasons best known to them, while OP3 despite service of notice of this complaint failed to participate in the complaint proceedings which give rise to draw an inference that they leave the matter to be decide by the Commission. However, OP4 being the insurer of OP Nos.1 and 2 alone contested and participated, has again failed to submit relevant documents to assist the Commission to arrive at a right conclusion, is again in our view, for the reasons best known to the Company. In our view, it is duty of the insurer at least, place Certificate of Insurance, its Schedule to appreciate as to how much legal compensation could be paid to complainant No.1 Smt.Alamelamma, her daughter-in-law Smt.Padma, who died while during pendency of the dispute and her grand children Chi.Vishal Raj and Kum.Ankitha respectively. This is how OP Nos.1 and 2 and OP4 being a subsidiary public undertaking companies of Government of India, assisted the Commission, to safeguard the interest of LPG Gas Cylinder consumers.
Anyhow, we have to decide on the available materials on record placed by complainant Nos.1 Smt.Alamelamma, since Smt.Padma her daughter-in-law is no more, Chi.Vishal Raj and Kum.Ankitha are aged 08 years and 05 years respectively are still minors and they are represented by their grandmother Smt.Alamelamma. As on the date of complaint she was aged about 64 years, is an illiterate woman, has reiterated contents of complaint and placed some materials for appreciation through her advocate. HP Gas book, wherein could see name of distributor Sugam Enterprises, name of Consumer, is Smt.Alamelamma with a consumer No.603945, number of cylinder is 02, deposited Rs.1,800 + Rs.100/-. This was issued on 30.09.2009. She has placed G-Tree to show, who are all members of her family along with her Aadhar No.6679 7685 8895. She has also placed copy of her Aadhar card, receipt for having deposited Rs.1,800/- + Rs.100/- to OP Nos.1 to 3. She has produced hospital records including advance receipts for having paid hospital charges to Health India Hospital, while in treatment of Mr.Manjesh. Further, Bengaluru South Deputy Tahasildar has issued Residence Certificate certifying that Mr.Manjesh S/o Late Nanjundappa is residing in the house in question, since 10 years. Mr.Manjesh, was an auto driver and to that effect Auto Driving License Display System with driver details are furnished by DCP Traffic, East Division, Bengaluru City. His DL bearing Number:19950002253 with badge No.3652. Mr.Manjesh held a Ration Card issued by Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, wherein could see the name of his wife Smt.Padma. He is a PAN Card Holder, issued by Department of Income Tax with PAN Number:AVLP2820P. As per DL particulars, he is licensed to drive Commercial 03 Wheel Cab w.e.f. 27.07.1995. He was born on 18.05.1974. His Aadhar bears with No.2726 6165 4284. The Deputy Tahasildar had issued the Income Certificate, certifying his income from all sources at Rs.8,000/- per month. Similarly, had issued Income Certificate of Smt.Padma and her income from all sources at Rs.96,000/- per annum. It is therefore, Commission has to determine the earnings of deceased Mr.Manjesh N in appreciating these records infra while deciding on the quantum of compensation to be payable by OPs.
As per Ex.C1 on 17.03.2016 Subramanyapura Police Station registered a Crime case No.164/2016 for the offences of Sec.337 and 338 on an information obtained from Mr.Manjesh N wherein could see Gas Cylinder blast taken place in a residential house bearing No.97 situate opposite to Old Government School, Ragi Machine Road, Vasanthpura, which is none other the residential house of complainant No.1 Smt.Alamelamma, the mother of injured Mr.Manjesh. The police have named Manager, HP Gas, Sugam Enterprises as an accused. Ex.C2 is an information received from Basavaraju N at 16:50 hrs on 17.03.2016, wherein informed, while mechanic was repairing the gas cylinder at about 9:30am on 17.03.2016, blast occurred due to which his brother Mr.Manjesh, his sister-in-law Smt.Padmavathi and the service boy had received 50% burns injuries and the house was extensively damaged. This N.Basavaraju, the informer is none other younger brother of Mr.Manjesh. As per Ex.C4 on 20.03.2016, he informed the police concerned about death of his brother Mr.Manjesh as a result of burn injuries, as such the police on 20.03.2016 at 9:15hrs incorporated Secs.337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sent the FIR to concerned Magistrate.
As Manjesh and Padma were admitted to Heath India Hospital after cylinder blast was taken place, Sub-Inspector of Police, Madiwala Police Station was informed by Dr.K.T.Ramesh as per Ex.C5. The said Health India Hospital issued Certificate of Death of Mr.Manjesh N, aged about 40 years male certifying his death on 20.03.2016 at 8:25am. The police have investigated the crime registered by them by drawing Panchanama, conducting inquest on the dead body as per Ex.C7 to Ex.C13. Ex.C14 is Post- Mortem Report, wherein external injuries were noted down and finally opined as to cause of death is due to Septicemia as a result of burn injuries sustained. Ex.C15 is the Death Certificate of Mr.Manjesh N. Thus all these documents are placed on record as to how on 17.03.2016 at 9:30 am cylinder blast was taken place after Shiva Lal, mechanic of OP3 tried to light the burner. Besides these documents, few positive photographs are marked as Ex.C59 to Ex.C82 to take notice as to the force of cylinder blast and as a result how extensive damages was caused to roof top, wall, cupboards, domestic utensils, electronic appliances, and kitchen utensils, the photographs of Smt.Padma, is produced to show as to how she had received burn injuries and how her outer beauty was lost due to burn injuries as per Ex.C76 to Ex.C82. It is unfortunate, she died during pendency of this complaint and it is also an unfortunate that complainant No.1 her mother-in-law an illiterate women, failed to place any medical records to establish her death taken place on 15.11.2022 was in consequence of burn injuries sustained in the said accident that was occurred on 17.03.2016 in LPG Cylinder blast. In order to claim compensation for the death of Smt.Padma, complainant No.1 is bound to prove her death was in consequence of injuries sustained in the accident, since accident was occurred on 17.03.2016 and Smt.Padma died on 15.11.2022. In other words she has to prove the nexus between her death and the injuries sustained in the cyclinder blast accident, which could not be able to prove either from the affidavit evidence or any of the medical records, as such we are of view, in the absence of cogent materials on record, very difficult to arrive at a conclusion either presuming certain things or drawing inferences that her death was a result in consequence of burn injuries sustained in cylinder blast taken place at 9:30am on 17.03.2016.
Let us examine accident report in Form-A along with Public Liability/Product Liability Insurance - Claim Form. In respect of Smt.Alamelamma, consequence of the accident submitted by Mr.Hansraj Meena, Deputy Manager-Sales, who is insured to with United India Insurance Company Limited namely OP4. The OP Nos.1 and 2 have stated approximately Rs.5,00,000/- was spent towards medical expenses, kitchen utensils and household goods were damaged at the place of LPG Gas Cylinder Gas blast. Mr.Manjesh son of consumer, Smt.Padma daughter-in-law were injured and one Mr.Shiva Lal mechanic is also injured. The period of policy issued by OP4 is commencing from 02.05.2015 to 01.05.2016, since the cylinder blast was taken place on 17.03.2016 falls well within the period of insurance, as such OP Nos.1 and 2 as insured, have submitted particulars to OP4 along with accident report to settle the claim, wherein could see name of OP3 Sugam Enterprises as their distributors. The cause of accident could be seen from the investigation report of Mr.Hansraj Meena, Deputy Manager-Sales OP1, an exact cause of accident cannot be ascertained but as per information gathered the pinning of the valve many times could be the reason for which remedial actions are noted down as follows:
Distributor directed to intensify safety awareness campaigns.
Intensify mandatory inspections and update them in dcms for record.
Conduct safety clinic every month for safety consumer awareness.
A training session for all distributor mechanics will be organized.
In Form-B could see persons involved in accident are Mr.Manjesh, 40 years, Smt.Padma, 35 years, Mr.Shiva, 27 years of whom Mr.Manjesh dead. OP3 Sugam Enterprises HP Gas addressed a letter to OP1 namely Deputy Manager-Claims Management on 15.05.2016 with all details of expenses incurred till date amounting to Rs.5,60,025.21/-, estimation of damages to house and property at Rs.3,45,840/- towards building repair and construction (customer's premises) and Rs.45,100/- towards personal items - furniture, utensils and appliances.Thus in all estimated damages amounting to Rs.9,50,965.21/-. However as against such estimation OP4, the insurer had assessed Rs.5,40,000/- and sent DD dated 27.03.2017 for Rs.5,40,000/- to the Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru on 31.03.2017, which in our view is not proportionate to the damages sustained by the consumer and members of her family. No doubt this Rs.5,40,000/- paidalready to Smt.Alamelamma, Smt.Padma and Mr.Basavaraj the younger brother of Mr.Manjesh is not disputed at all. Thus, these materials would show OP Nos.1 to 3 have convinced that LPG Cylinder blast had taken place on 17.03.2016 at 9:30am in the house of complainant No.1 Smt.Alamelamma being their consumer. As such OP nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation for the damages sustained by the complainants and OP no.4 is bound to indemnify their insured. They are also bound to pay compensation not as symbolic but it should be just proportionate to the injuries sustained and what they have suffered aftermath. In other words are liable to reimburse towards medical expenditure of deceased Mr.Manjesh and Smt.Padma, besides actual damages suffered towards building repair and construction, damages caused to furniture, utensils and electric appliances and also for the loss of live of Mr.Manjesh being member of the family of consumer residing in the registered house which was not at all considered either by OP Nos.1 and 2 or by OP4. It is therefore we are of the view that amount which they have paid is a meager amount, as such is not appreciated by us for simple reasons for the reasons best known have failed to place policy schedule to ascertain what terms and conditions are embedded to the certificate and as to what extent they are liable to a consumer and members of family of consumer in such accident cases. Thus, these acts of OP Nos.1, 2 and 4 is nothing but their deliberate actions for the reasons best known, which is already opined supra and such actions could also be said their willful withholding of documents. They are ordinary parties, since held public office at the cost of tax payers money yet failed to submit their version, failed to submit affidavit evidence and documents thereon to assist Commission.Is it not amounts to rendering deficiencies to their customers? Of course from the materials on record though OP no.3 distributor is placed exparte has to be held justifies in submitting the claim papers to the insured Ops.1 and 2 with his recommendation to settle the claim, which is appreciated by us. In arriving to such view our findings on point Nos.1 to 3 and 4 could be record in the affirmative and it is goes without saying in the negative on point no.5.
In view of findings recorded on point Nos.1 to 5, we are of the view, settling claim at Rs.5,40,000/- as against Rs.9,50,965.21/-, submitted by OP3 the distributor not only to OP1 but also to OP4 on 15.05.2016 and 05.05.2016 could be held not justified or is held meager amount since their own distributor submitted along with bill attached at Rs.9,50,965.21/-. In such conclusion we are of the considered view they are entitle for just compensation towards medical expenditure as found in claim bill. We could see reference of policy number.0217002715P101332273 in these documents submitted by OP1 on 05.05.2016 to OP4, received from OP.3 for Rs.9,50,965.21/-. Thus, we found these documents could be acceptable to assess just compensation payable to complainant No.1 for the loss sustained to her house, loss of electric appliances, loss of furniture, kitchen utensils, clothes, unforeseen losses sustained, towards medical expenses, attendant charges, expenses towards diet and other expenses.
Let us come to award compensation for the loss of lives of Mr.Manjesh N, son of complainant No.1, father of complainant No.3 and 4 and Smt.Padma, deceased complainant no.2. Since we are of the view complainants on record failed to establish death of Smt.Padma, during the course of enquiry is due to the burn injuries sustained in the cylinder gas blast accident and as they have failed to show the nexus between her death and the injuries sustained in the accident, her legal representatives have to be held entitled for reimbursement of medical expenditures only and not under any of the heads. Thus with such findings we have to proceed to appreciate the evidence on record to award compensation for the loss of live of Mr.Manjesh N and in this regard we have to follow certain guidelines of the higher courts and accepted principles before assessing the quantum of compensation for the death of son of complainant no.1 and father of complainant nos.3 and 4. The death of Mr.Manjesh, was occurred in the cylinder blast, manufactured by OP1, supplied by OP3, insured with OP4, as found from enquiry documents stated supra. Deceased Mr.Manjesh N was a cab driver, had earnings of Rs.8,000/- per month as certified by Revenue Officer, which could be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion to assess general and special damages. Admittedly, he was residing in the house of consumer/complainant No.1 being her son with his wife and children was aged about 40 years as such he has to be put in between the age group of 36-40 years followed by the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Sarala Varma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). Learned counsel for complainants would submit had Mr.Manjesh N is alive with his avocation as cab driver would have earned for another 23 years and submits his earnings was Rs.25,000/- per month, however, facts remain found from a certificate issued by Revenue Officer, his earnings was Rs.8,000/- per month from all sources and similar such earnings was of his wife, which could be acceptable as such we determined his earnings was at Rs.8,000/- per months or Rs.96,000/- per annum as the case may be. Further in consideration of market index, towards future prospects of an earning member has also to be taken into account followed by the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Smt.Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and others reported in 1996 ACJ 581. Thus, Commission determined earning of Mr.Manjesh at Rs.12,000/- per month and have to apply 15 multiplier and determined gross earnings of Mr.Manjesh had he been alive at Rs.21,60,000/-. Admittedly, complainant No.1 Smt.Alamelamma, the consumer is his mother and complainant No.3 and 4 are her minor children as such are to be held his dependents and deduct 1/3rd earnings towards his personal expenditures as guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra and deducted Rs.7,20,000/- out of Rs.21,60,000/-, thereby assessed at Rs.14,40,000/- as net compensation for the loss of dependency. Complainant No.1 and 3 and 4 have lost the estate of Mr.Manjesh for which notional award of Rs.50,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Complainant No.1 has lost her loving and earning son. Complainant No.3 and 4 at their tender age have lost their loving father. Hence for the loss of love and affections an amount of Rs.25,000/- each is awarded as just compensation. It has come in the enquiry that some amount was already paid towards expenditure towards funeral and lost obsequies; hence no amount of compensation is awarded under the said head. Thus, reaching to such conclusion, it would be just and proper to award Rs.25,15,965/- had complainants have not received any amount of compensation, since it is found from enquiry complainants have already received Rs.5,40,000/-, which has to be deducted in this compensation amount and the net amount of compensation payable would be Rs.19,75,965/- consisting of general and special damages in proportionate to the damages suffered by the complainants as guided by good conscience and guiding principles. Accordingly, recorded findings on these points as against the claim of Rs.94,59,934.25/- and held OP No.1 and 2 and OP4 are not justified to settle the claim as they settle for meager amount.
In nutshell we have awarded compensation as Under:
For the loss of dependency : Rs.14,40,000/- For the loss of estate : Rs.50,000/- For the loss of love and affection: Rs.75,000/- For the damages caused to the house of complainants, loss of furniture and fixtures, electric appliances, clothes and kitchen utensils, towards medical expenditures etc; supported by medical bills: Rs.9,50,965/-
Thus, totally Rs.25,15,965/- is held just and proper compensation payable to the complainants, since, Rs.5,40,000/- is already paid prior to filing of the complaint, has to be deducted and the net compensation payable would be Rs.19,75,965/-. Accordingly recorded findings on point No.6 and proceed to:
Allowed the Complaint filed by complainants U/s 17 of CPA, 1986 in part and directed OP Nos.1 to 3 do pay Rs.19,75,965/- to the complainant Nos.1, 3 and 4 along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 20.03.2016 till realization and do pay Rs.1,00,000/- for rendering deficiency in service and pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
OP No.4 insurer is directed to indemnify OP Nos.1 and 2 in paying their liability to pay compensation to the complainant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and is directed to deposit such amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of such default.
In case of deposit of the amount office is directed to deposit Rs.7,50,000/- each in the name of complainant nos.3 and 4 till they attain majority with a liberty to the guardian to draw interest accrued thereon for their prosecuting education and up-liftment in the society on every year before commencement of the educational academic year.
The office is directed to issue cheque for the balance of amount in the name of complainant no.1 with proper identification of her advocate.
The amount is directed to be deposit in any one of Nationalized Bank of the choice of the complainant no.1/ guardian.
Furnish free copy of this order to both parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER