[ad_1]
Placing reliance on several judgments of the Supreme Court and various high courts, Justice Rajendra Badamikar said: “It is held that provident fund, family pension, cash balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., cannot be termed ‘pecuniary advantages’ for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act. These amounts accrue to the claimants on account of contractual relation which the deceased would have entered with his employer.” The judge also disposed of the appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited.
The insurer had challenged the September 3, 2018 order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bengaluru, wherein an award of Rs 42,64,000 compensation with 9% interest was made in favour of the family members of Vishal Singh, a software engineer working with MindTree Limited. The insurer had sought for deducting Rs 15 lakh received by the petitioners on account of the death of the deceased, out of Group Insurance Policy.
At 9.30pm on May 31, 2016, Vishal Singh was riding pillion on a motorcycle from the Nice Road side towards Uttarahalli Main Road when the two-wheeler collided with a speeding Tata Indica car coming from the opposite direction. A seriously injured Vishal Singh was admitted to a hospital but died on June 5, 2016. The family then moved the tribunal, seeking Rs 50 lakh compensation. Considering that Vishal Singh was drawing a salary of Rs 26,500 per month with an annual package of Rs 3,20,004, the tribunal awarded Rs 42,64,000 compensation with 9% interest.
Both the insurer and Vishal Singh’s family challenged the verdict. However, partly allowing the insurer’s appeal, Justice Badamikar noted that 9% interest was on the higher side and reduced it to 6% in line with the prevailing fixed deposit interest rate, a method adopted in other cases.
However, the appeal seeking higher compensation was rejected by the judge on the ground that the tribunal had properly assessed the compensation based on the income and prospects of Vishal Singh.
[ad_2]
Source link