Latest news with #KSMudagal
Time of India
25-05-2025
- Time of India
Karnataka high court rejects insurer's appeal, directs it to pay 70% of revised compensation amount
Bengaluru: In a striking verdict that underscores the significance of solid evidence in legal matters, Karnataka high court has directed an insurance company to pay 70 per cent of the revised compensation in a fatal accident case, involving a parked lorry and a young motorcyclist. "Merely making allegations without substantiating the same with cogent evidence would not serve the purpose," observed the division bench, comprising Justices KS Mudagal and MGS Kamal. The tragic case revolves around 23-year-old Bipin from Bengaluru, who lost his life on March 6, 2016. At 1.45am, he was riding his motorbike near a railway bridge on Bengaluru-Ballari main road when he collided with a lorry parked along the road. A second, unidentified vehicle then struck him, resulting in fatal injuries. Bipin's parents, N Nagesh and Vedavati Bai, sought Rs 2 crore in compensation. In 2018, the tribunal awarded them Rs 9,74,000 with 6% interest, placing the blame squarely on the negligent parking of the lorry. Insurance company HDFC Ergo, however, challenged the order. The insurer argued the policy commenced only on March 7, 2016 — a day after the accident — and labelled the policy document produced by the claimants as "fraudulent." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Write Better, Work Smarter With This Desktop App Grammarly Install Now Undo The bereaved parents also appealed, contesting the tribunal's decision to consider Bipin's monthly income as only Rs 9,000. The high court, however, found no documentary evidence to support the parents' income claim and relied instead on Karnataka State Legal Services Authority's chart that pegged the notional income at Rs 9,500 for 2016. Crucially, the insurer also failed to back up its serious claim about a fraudulent policy. "Since the respondent-insurance company has taken a specific and serious stand of the lorry owner obtaining a fake policy, it ought to have discharged the burden in the manner known to law," the judges stressed. Maintaining the tribunal's finding that the lorry driver was 70 per cent at fault, while the remaining 30 per cent was of the unidentified vehicle, the high court revised the compensation amount to Rs 15,79,400. The insurance company has been ordered to pay Rs 11,05,580, enhancing the compensation by Rs 1,31,580.
Time of India
10-05-2025
- Time of India
Aged parents living separately can still be dependants in accident case: Karntaka high court
Bengaluru: Aged parents cannot be denied compensation merely because they live separately from their children, the high court has said. The observation came as the court dismissed an appeal filed by Company against a compensation award issued by the in Kolar. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The case revolves around a road accident that occurred in the early hours of Dec 24, 2009. GM Narayanaswamy, a physical education teacher employed at a govt higher primary school, was en route to the pilgrimage town of Shabarimala with friends in a Toyota Qualis. At 2.45am, the vehicle crashed into a roadside tree on Gudalur Main Road in Tamil Nadu, leading to Narayanaswamy's the incident, Narayanaswamy's family sought compensation, citing his monthly income of Rs 18,000. In 2014, the tribunal awarded them Rs 18.9 lakh with 6% annual interest. However, both the insurance company and the victim's family appealed against the insurer argued that the driver of the Toyota Qualis was not at fault and he only diverted the vehicle to avoid a collision. According to the company, the parents of the deceased were living separately, and hence, they were not dependent on him, and that the son of the deceased was granted compassionate appointment and hence, no compensation can be awarded under 'loss of future income.' A division bench comprising Justices KS Mudagal and KV Aravind noted that police had registered an FIR against the driver and charged him under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life), and 304A (causing death by negligence), as well as under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court emphasised that in Indian society, it is common for elderly parents to remain in their native villages while being financially supported by their children living elsewhere. "It is the pious responsibility of the children," the court said, reinforcing the moral and legal basis for the regard to the grant of compassionate appointment to the victim's son, the bench in Oct 2010 noted that in the Sebastiani Lakra and Ors Vs National Insurance Company Ltd case, the Supreme Court held that deduction cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation on account of insurance, pensionary benefits, gratuity, or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. "On the date of the accident, the son was a dependent," the bench added while rejecting the appeal filed by the that the son was indeed dependent at the time of the accident, the court rejected the insurance company's appeal. Simultaneously, it allowed the victim's family's appeal in part, enhancing the compensation to Rs 23.5 lakh. The revised amount will be distributed as follows: 50% to Narayanaswamy's wife, 30% to his children, and 20% to his parents.
Time of India
10-05-2025
- Time of India
Aged parents living separately can still be dependents in accident case: Karntaka high court
Bengaluru: Aged parents cannot be denied compensation merely because they live separately from their children, the high court has said. The observation came as the court dismissed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company against a compensation award issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Kolar. The case revolves around a road accident that occurred in the early hours of Dec 24, 2009. GM Narayanaswamy, a physical education teacher employed at a govt higher primary school, was en route to the pilgrimage town of Shabarimala with friends in a Toyota Qualis. At 2.45am, the vehicle crashed into a roadside tree on Gudalur Main Road in Tamil Nadu, leading to Narayanaswamy's the incident, Narayanaswamy's family sought compensation, citing his monthly income of Rs 18,000. Operation Sindoor Pak drones enter Indian airspace, explosions heard just hours after truce deal Sirens, explosions in border districts after Pak breaks deal: What we know so far 'What happened to ceasefire?' J&K CM after explosions heard across Srinagar In 2014, the tribunal awarded them Rs 18.9 lakh with 6% annual interest. However, both the insurance company and the victim's family appealed against the insurer argued that the driver of the Toyota Qualis was not at fault and he only diverted the vehicle to avoid a collision. According to the company, the parents of the deceased were living separately, and hence, they were not dependent on him, and that the son of the deceased was granted compassionate appointment and hence, no compensation can be awarded under 'loss of future income.' A division bench comprising Justices KS Mudagal and KV Aravind noted that police had registered an FIR against the driver and charged him under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life), and 304A (causing death by negligence), as well as under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court emphasised that in Indian society, it is common for elderly parents to remain in their native villages while being financially supported by their children living elsewhere. "It is the pious responsibility of the children," the court said, reinforcing the moral and legal basis for the regard to the grant of compassionate appointment to the victim's son, the bench in Oct 2010 noted that in the Sebastiani Lakra and Ors Vs National Insurance Company Ltd case, the Supreme Court held that deduction cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation on account of insurance, pensionary benefits, gratuity, or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. "On the date of the accident, the son was a dependent," the bench added while rejecting the appeal filed by the that the son was indeed dependent at the time of the accident, the court rejected the insurance company's appeal. Simultaneously, it allowed the victim's family's appeal in part, enhancing the compensation to Rs 23.5 lakh. The revised amount will be distributed as follows: 50% to Narayanaswamy's wife, 30% to his children, and 20% to his parents.
Time of India
10-05-2025
- Time of India
Karnataka high court rules aged parents living separately can still be dependents in accident compensation case
BENGALURU: Merely because were , it cannot be said that they were not depending on the deceased. The made this observation while rejecting the appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited in relation to an order passed by the Motor Claims Tribunal at Kolar. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On December 24, 2009, when and his friends were proceeding to Shabarimala in a Toyota Qualis, at about 2.45 am, along Gudalur main road in Tamil Nadu, the vehicle hit a roadside tree. Narayanaswamy succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The family members then moved the tribunal, seeking compensation, citing that deceased Narayanaswamy was working as a Physical Education Teacher in a government higher primary school and earning Rs 18,000 per month. On November 25, 2014, the tribunal awarded Rs 18,93,308 compensation with interest at 6% per annum to the family members. Both the insurer and the family members of Narayanaswamy appealed against the said verdict. The insurer argued that the driver of the Toyota Qualis was not at fault and he only diverted the vehicle to avoid a collision. The insurance company further argued that the parents of the deceased were living separately and hence were not dependent upon him, and that the son of the deceased was granted compassionate appointment and hence no compensation can be awarded under "loss of future income." However, after perusing the materials on record, a division bench comprising Justices KS Mudagal and KV Aravind pointed out that despite denial by the insurer, based on the evidence, Gudalur North police registered an FIR against the driver of the Toyota Qualis and filed a charge sheet against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The bench further noted that when the children are in service, many times parents stay back in the villages though they were being looked after by their earning children, and it is the pious responsibility of the children also. As regards the grant of compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased, the bench in October 2010 pointed out that in the Sebastiani Lakra and Ors Vs National Insurance Company Ltd case, the Supreme Court clearly held that deduction cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation on account of insurance, pensionary benefits, gratuity, or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. "On the date of the accident, the son was a dependent," the bench further added while rejecting the appeal filed by the insurer. At the same time, the bench partly allowed the appeal filed by the family members of Narayanaswamy and awarded a slightly enhanced compensation of Rs 23,05,000 with a 50% share to the wife, a 30% share to the children, and a 20% share to the parents of the deceased.
