Skip to main content

Compensation for motor accident needs to be computed under different heads

The Supreme Court in Sandhya Rani Debbarma & Ors. Vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr, has observed that determining the compensation under different heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium etc. is crucial while computing award of compensation due to dependants of the deceased in motor accidents. In the instant case, the husband of the appellant Sadhya Rani died in an accident in Baramur in 2003, following which she filed a suit before the Agartala Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs 33.45 lakh. The Tribunal in 2005, by way of judgment, said Rs 32,52,700 be given to the deceased’s family. The National Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal verdict in Gauhati High Court, which modified the award and reduced it to Rs 20.40 lakh in 2006. An apex court Bench comprising Justice V Gopala Gowda and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel said it disagreed with the view adopted by the Gauhati High Court, which had modified the Tribunal award to Rs 20.40 lakh, which is only the annual loss of dependency. The High Court, while reducing the amount of compensation, had observed as follows: “For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, this writ petition has merit and the same is allowed modifying the award to Rs 20,40,000/- only. As this amount would fetch perpetually more than Rs 10,000/- per month by way of interest @ 6% per annum without consuming the principal sum during the period of dependency, no further award on any other count is called for……” Observing that the High Court ignored settled principles in awarding compensation, the apex court Bench said: “What is more shocking is the logic applied by the High Court in modifying the award to Rs 20, 40,000/-, which is only the annual loss of dependency, thereby, completely missing the next crucial step in determining the award of compensation due to the dependants of the deceased under the other different heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium etc. It is difficult for this court to understand what is the legal principle on which the learned single judge has relied on to arrive at the conclusion that no further award under any other head is called for, when the same has been the well settled position of law by this court.” Referring to the three-judge Bench decision in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors. and Kalpanaraj & Ors. vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims’ Association & Ors, the court held that Rs 27,51,120 is payable by the insurance company to the claimant at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/determination-compensation-different-heads-crucial-computing-award-motor-accidents-sc/

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 ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...

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...