Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd., vs Smt Velangini @ Velangani W/O Late Arun ... on 22 April, 2013

Author: N.Ananda

Bench: N.Ananda

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2013

                        BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1692 OF 2012 (MV)

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
DO 4, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KRISHI BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001
REP BY ITS MANAGER
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR                       ... APPELLANT

(By SRI B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SMT.VELANGINI @ VELANGANI
       W/O LATE ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
       R/AT NO 815, I MAIN 8TH CROSS,
       RAJENDRANAGAR, KORAMANGALA
       BANGALORE 560 034

2.     KUM VIJAYA @ VIJI
       D/O LATE ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN
       AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
       MINOR REP BY MOTHER SMT VELANGINI @
       VELAGANI
       R/AT NO 815, I MAIN 8TH CROSS, RAJENDRA
       NAGAR, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560 034

3.      MASTER ROBERT
        S/O LATE ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN
        AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
        MINOR REP BY MOTHER SMT VELANGINI @
                            2



     VELAGANI
     R/AT NO 815, I MAIN 8TH CROSS, RAJENDRA
     NAGAR, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560 034

4.   MASTER STEPHEN
     S/O LATE ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN
     AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
     MINOR REP BY MOTHER SMT VELANGINI @
     VELAGANI
     R/AT NO 815, I MAIN 8TH CROSS, RAJENDRA
     NAGAR, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560 034

5.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
     K.S.R.T.C. K H ROAD,
     BANGALORE 560027              ... RESPONDENTS

(By SRI K.NAGARAJA, ADV. FOR R5.
R-1 TO R4 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

                         ----
    THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:03.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.4537/2009 ON
THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST & ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                     JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for parties.

2. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:-

"Whether the Tribunal was justified in including the ex-gratia payment as a part of the compensation awarded to claimants?" 3

3. The claim petition was filed by the dependants for the death of late Arun Kumar. The first claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 4 are the minor children of deceased. the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,85,000/- under the following heads:

i. Loss of dependency Rs.7,20,000/-, (Rs.5000 X ¾ X 12 X 16) ii. Medical expenses Rs. 30,000/-, iii. Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-, iv. Transportation etc. Rs. 5,000/-, v. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-, vi. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
                                         _________________
                                 Total    Rs. 7,85,000/-


4.     It is not in dispute that the     fifth respondent -

KSRTC is the registered owner of bus involved in the accident and it was insured with appellant - Insurance Company. The KSRTC had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as ex-gratia payment immediately after the accident. It was an act of grace. Therefore, it should not have been deducted from compensation awarded to 4 claimants. Similarly, the Insurance Company should not have been directed to pay the same to KSRTC.
5. Shri Nagaraj, learned Counsel for the KSRTC would submit KSRTC had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-

as ex-gratia to the claimants which was a benefit that had accrued to claimants due to accident.

6. I am not persuaded to accept this submission. The State owned Corporation had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as ex-gratia to the claimants who were in state of distress having lost bread winner of the family. Any amount paid in grace cannot be taken into consideration while computing compensation vis-à-vis liability of parties. Therefore, this submission cannot be accepted. The approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. Therefore, I hold that the appellant - Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,85,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization to the claimants. In the result, I pass the following:

5

ORDER The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned award is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,85,000/-. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be transferred to the Tribunal. The rest of the impugned award relating to rate of interest, period of accrual of interest and ratio of payment and investment is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sh