Skip to main content

Compensation cheques must be in name of victim

 The scourge of mofussil courts issuing joint account cheque to victims of motor accident cases, thereby helping the accident case specialist-lawyers withdraw a bulk of the sum as fee, has come to the knowledge of the Madras high court.
Directing motor accident claims courts not to issue cheques in favour of any person other than the victim, or in the name of any 'company,' Justice S Vaidhyanathan said: "It has been brought to the attention of this court that in crossed cheques issued to claimants, it is mentioned as "& co." instead of "a/c payee".
Such practice has to be avoided by all trial courts and crossing should be made in the cheques only with the endorsement "A/C payee" and not with the endorsement "& co."
Threatening courts with dire action if they violated this order, the judge said: "It is made clear that if any violation is brought to the notice of this court, appropriate action will be initiated against the erring officials."
Justice Vaidhyanathan also directed the high court registry to send a circular to all courts below dealing with motor accident cases to follow the condition in letter and spirit.
Doubling the compensation from 1.5 lakh to 3 lakh awarded to a B Tech graduate who suffered injuries and handicap in a road accident case, the judge said, "the award amount shall be paid to the claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in the form of a crossed account payee cheque, favouring only the claimant and it should not be issued in favour of any other person/company".
N Dileep, 20, a B Tech student of Dr MGR Engineering College, met with an accident on January 25, 2007 and suffered injuries and multiple fractures on the leg.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a