Perne LPG tanker tragedy: High Court rejects plea to deduct ex-gratia from compensation
Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company seeking deduction of government-issued ex-gratia payments from the compensation awarded to the families of 13 victims who died in the 2013 LPG tanker explosion at Perne in Dakshina Kannada district.
A single-judge bench of Justice P. Sree Sudha held that ex-gratia amounts released by the government constitute a form of social security support intended to mitigate the loss of income suffered by the affected families. The court clarified that such payments cannot be linked to, or adjusted against, statutory compensation awarded under motor accident claim proceedings.
The court stated that the ex-gratia amount paid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) could not be deducted from the compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). It further noted that the Supreme Court has already ruled that ex-gratia disbursements cannot be subtracted while calculating compensation.
According to the High Court, the explosion was triggered by negligence on the part of the tanker driver, and therefore the victims were entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court directed the insurance company to deposit the entire compensation amount along with applicable interest.
Background of the incident
On 9 April 2013, an LPG tanker belonging to HPCL overturned near Perne village on the Mangaluru–Bantwal highway. The gas leak ignited a massive fire, killing 13 people and injuring several others. Residential buildings, commercial establishments, and multiple vehicles along the road were severely damaged.
Following the incident, HPCL and the state government distributed various relief amounts to the bereaved families and the injured. In December 2016, the MACT in Mangaluru allowed the compensation claims filed by affected families.
National Insurance Company later challenged the tribunal’s orders in eight separate appeals, arguing that the incident was essentially a fire accident and not a motor vehicle accident, and that the ex-gratia amounts already paid by HPCL and the government should be deducted from the compensation. The High Court has now rejected these arguments in its ruling.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Opposition plans to move fresh notice seeking removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar
New Delhi (PTI): Undeterred by the rejection of their earlier notices, opposition parties are planning a fresh move to seek the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, sources said on Saturday.
According to highly placed sources, leaders from several opposition parties are in talks, and at least five senior MPs from different parties -- including the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the DMK -- are working on drafting a new notice to initiate removal proceedings.
It has, however, not yet been decided which House the notice would be moved in, or whether it would be introduced in both Houses as was done last time, the source added.
Buoyed by the defeat of The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha on Friday, opposition leaders are aiming to secure more MPs' signatures on the notice and are looking at garnering at least 200, the source said.
"We want to make a statement. We first need to prove that the number last time was underestimated," the source added.
In its earlier notices, the opposition had accused CEC Kumar of a "failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity" and of acting under the "thumb of the executive".
The notices levelled sweeping charges against the CEC, alleging “proved misbehaviour” on grounds including a compromised and executive-influenced appointment, partisan functioning -- such as the alleged “graded response” doctrine targeting opposition leaders -- obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and erosion of transparency through refusal to share data and materials.
They further accused him of enabling large-scale disenfranchisement via Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in Bihar and elsewhere, defying or delaying compliance with Supreme Court directions, and acting in alignment with the political executive, thereby undermining the independence of the Election Commission.
However, in almost similar responses, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejected the notices, holding that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for removal.
They reasoned that appointment-related issues or prior government service do not constitute misconduct; differences in public statements or administrative decisions lack evidence of wilful abuse of authority; and actions like data-sharing or electoral roll revisions fall within the commission’s constitutional mandate and are subject to judicial review.
The responses also stressed that many issues cited were either speculative, politically interpretative, or sub judice, and that removal proceedings cannot be based on disagreement or perceived political consequences but require clear, specific, and provable misconduct, which, they concluded, was absent in this case.
