Legal Reference Library

The Delhi High Court, in the case of VK Bhatnagar vs Canara Bank and Anr, has directed the bank to compensate the petitioner for the trauma and humiliation caused due to wrongful attachment of his property because of the bank’s negligence arising due to mistaken identity. The petition was filed by VK Bhatnagar, whose property was wrongly attached by Canara Bank for default of payment by a debtor of the same name. The petitioner faced extreme humiliation since not only was the warrant of attachment affixed to his property, but loudspeakers too proclaimed the same. The petitioner then filed objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, stating that he had undertaken no financial transactions with Canara Bank and also disclosing his parentage. He also showed that he was a resident of Delhi where as the debtor is a resident of Lucknow. However, no reply was offered by Canara Bank in response to the objections filed. Harassed, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the ban...

In  Finolex Cables Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., the two companies had entered into a contract and MTNL had invoked BG because of non-delivery. The question before the Delhi High Court was whether the invocation of the BG by MTNL in terms of Clause 7.4 of the PO was justified. The High Court opined - 41. MTNL has no explanation whatsoever for suddenly springing on FCL the unilateral invocation of the BG which it made FCL renew from time to time. There was no loss suffered by MTNL on account of the failure of FCL to supply the cables. Merely because Clause 7.4 of the PO entitles MTNL to seek LD up to a maximum of 10% cannot justify the amount it sought to recover, namely, the entire sum of Rs.36,75,300, which according to the learned Arbitrator was approximately 10% of the contract value. 42. The law in relation to LD has been explained by the Supreme Court in its decision in Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority (supra). In para 43 of the s...

High Court of Delhi Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Haryana Telecom Limited MANU/DE/1072/2017 21.04.2017 Arbitration Party complaining breach of contract is entitled to reasonable compensation whether or not actual loss is proved to have been caused Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ('MTNL') has filed present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an Award dated 12th March, 2003 passed by Arbitral Tribunal ('AT') in disputes between MTNL and Respondent, Haryana Telecom Limited ('HTL'). AT held that, since MTNL failed to prove actual loss or damage on account of delayed delivery of goods and since, mere delay in supplies was unlikely to cause damages, question of even fixing a reasonable compensation under Section 74 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 ('ICA') did not arise. Consequently, MTNL was asked to refund HTL sum of Rs. 1,03,20,763 together with interest @ 12% from the date of Award till the dat...

Supreme Court Vedanta Limited V.  Emirates Trading Agency LLC MANU/SC/0474/2017 21.04.2017 Contract Existence of a concluded contract is sine qua non in compensation claim for loss and damages Respondent's Suit for breach of contract and damages was decreed by Principal District Court, in Original Suit for a sum of Rs. 5,25,55,460/- with interest @ 8% from date of plaint till realisation. First Appeal by Appellant was dismissed by High Court. In Special Leave Petition preferred against same, liberty was granted to approach High Court in the review jurisdiction, on issue whether agreement between parties constituted a concluded contract or matters rested at stage of a proposal and a counter proposal only. Liberty was further granted to approach this Court again, if aggrieved. Review application was dismissed by High Court. Appellant submitted that, agreement was a draft proposal from Respondent regarding supply of phosphoric acid by Appellant in a specified duration. App...

The Supreme Court in Kumaran Vs State of Kerala & Anr. has held that compensation ordered by the court would be  recoverable even though a default sentence has been suffered. A bench comprising Justice RF Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha upheld a Kerala High Court decision that had approved the order of magistrate by invoking Section 421 CrPC issuing a distress warrant against the accused for realising compensation ordered in a cheque bounce case but for different reasoning. The order of the high court was assailed before the apex court on the ground that compensation under Section 357(3) would be covered by the proviso if the accused has undergone the default sentence awarded and special reasons in writing would have to be recorded before action under Section 421 can be initiated. The court observed that the objective of the legal fiction created by Section 431 is to extend for the purpose of recovery of compensation until such recovery is completed – and this would not o...

In Secretary/Manager, Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank v. Ebrahimkutty, appeal has been filed against the impugned order passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide which, Consumer Complaint No. C-05/13, filed by present Respondent, was allowed and Appellant/opposite party (OP) was directed to return the original sale deed number 1959/92 to complainant within one month, failing which to provide compensation of 10 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. In facts of case, complainant/respondent availed a loan from Appellant, by mortgaging his property. Complainant repaid his loan, but OP Bank did not return the original title deed. It has been stated that the Bank orally informed him in the year 1999 that the original deed was missing, and the OP Bank was on search to recover the same. Complainant stated that, property was valued at about Rs. 75 lakhs and due to lack of original document, complainant was unable to sell pro...

In Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while increasing the compensation of the accident victim held that We may observe at the outset that it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. Recognition to this principle was given for the first time in the year 1966 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti & Ors.[1] What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by ...

High Court of Bombay Ramesh Narayan Patil and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others Land Acquisition Deposit of compensation amount in government treasury is not equivalent to compensation paid to landowners/persons interested Instant Petition by Petitioners claiming to be legal heirs of owner of land situated at Talavali village, Taluka and District Thane within municipal limits of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation are seeking declaration to effect that, acquisition proceedings in respect of said land, resulting in award dated 31st August, 1984 deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned Senior Counsel for Corporation, land owner having refused to accept amount of compensation, benefit of Section 24 of Act of 2013 will not be available to Petitioners. Issue involved is whether offer by Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay compensation amount to land...

In Sheela O.K. Vs. New India Insurance Company, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decided that When an insurer is impleaded as a party-respondent to the claim petition, as contrasted from merely being a noticee under Section 149(2) of the Act, its rights are significantly different. If the insurer is only a noticee, it can only raise such of those grounds as are permissible in law under Section 149(2). But if he is a party-respondent, it can raise, not only those grounds which are available under Section 149(2), but also all other grounds that are available to a person against whom a claim is made. If the insurer is already a respondent, having been impleaded as a party-respondent, it need not seek the permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act.

Government is liable to compensate for death or injury occurring to a vehicle owner during an accident as road tax is levied by them and as coverage is not available to the owner in the insurance provided as per law, says the Kerala High Court. Government can either pay such compensation or assign the burden to insurance companies through appropriate change in legislation, the court said. A division bench comprising justices CT Ravikumar and KP Jyothindranath asked the government to give due attention to the matter after considering an appeal (MACA No. 2102/2013) filed by the wife, children, and mother of Biju of Kottaram Nagar in Kollam who died in a motorcycle accident at around 5.30pm on March 21, 2010. Biju was riding pillion on the motorcycle owned by him and one Gireesh Kumar was riding the bike when it capsized. Biju had obtained a full insurance from National Insurance Co. Ltd but the company declined to grant compensation stating they are liable to pay only a third party and...

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 ...

The Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., has observed that persons whose property is expropriated by the state need to be paid immediately so as to enable them to rehabilitate. This observation was made by a Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman while dismissing an appeal by the Delhi Development Corporation seeking a revisit to the dictum laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. HM Solanki. In Pune Municipal Corporation case, the Supreme Court had held that acquisition would be deemed to have lapsed and would be covered under the 2013 law entitling the landowners to higher compensation, if compensation for land acquired under the 1894 Act has not been paid to the land owner or deposited with a competent court and retained in the treasury. Read the said judgment and Live Law report here. Refusing to revisit the said judgment, the court observed: “It is important to note that a notice of award under Section 12(2) to person...

Citizens can claim compensation from the state if their complaints about noise pollution have gone unheard, the Bombay High Court (HC) said . A division bench of justice Abhay Oka and justice Amjad Sayed said the failure of law enforcement agencies in implementing noise pollution rules was a violation of a citizen’s fundamental right. The order, issued on August 16, was published on the court’s website on September 5. The court will hear the matter again on October 4 to discuss details about the compensation citizens can claim. “We hold that any breach of the Noise Pollution Rules shall amount infringement of fundamental right of citizens under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and apart from the other remedies available, the citizens will have right to seek compensation from the state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India on account of breach of fundamental rights,” read the order. The court gave the order while hearing a group of petitions that ra...

In an order with wide ramification, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that getting injured while leaning out from a train door couldn't be termed as self-inflicted injury as such kind of negligence was not uncommon in the country. HC passed these orders while setting aside the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal that had denied compensation to the kin of a passenger who died after falling from a train. Deceased Munna Kumar was travelling from Patna to Ludhiana on a valid ticket on March 27, 2011. When he was passing through Kesri railway station near Ambala, due to heavy rush in the train and a sudden jerk, he fell down and hit a pole and later succumbed to injuries. His widow Sheela Devi was denied compensation by railway authorities on the grounds that the deceased was leaning out of the door and in the process he fell down and struck a pole of an overbridge. The railway had taken the stand that it amounted to self-inflicted injury and own criminal act. Therefore...

Orissa High Court has recently held that a writ application for payment of compensation for the death of a person in electrocution is maintainable when the undisputed facts clearly reveal the same. Petitioners, the unfortunate parents of Mr. Madhusudan Das, who died in electrocution, approached the High Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of their only son. The Petitioners stated in the Petition that, on 12.7.1997 evening while their son, Madhusudan Das was driving the cattle, who were damaging the standing paddy crops, from the field by holding a lathi, the said lathi touched the electric live line of the pump house, as a result of which, he got the electric shock, fell down and became senseless. Thereafter he was shifted to headquarter Hospital, Jajpur for treatment. On the way he expired. Justice AK Rath has co...

The Supreme Court had in its judgment rendered in March, last year, directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India to absorb the some temporary workmen in the permanent posts. It was further held that the Corporation would be liable to pay all consequential benefits including monetary benefits taking into consideration the revised pay scale in the cases of those workmen who had attained the age of superannuation. On a Review plea by LIC, which contended that implementing the order would increase in its financial burden and that the same will be contrary to the interests of the policyholders, the Supreme Court has modified the Judgment only with regard to payment of back wages and held that only 50% of the back wages with consequential benefits will be payable. The Court observed: “While ordinarily, the aspect of financial hardship would not be a sufficient ground to warrant our interference in the instant case, but keeping in view the fact that LIC is a statutory Corporation operatin...

Asserting that it was state government's duty to maintain law and order and protect its citizens during hartals or bandhs, the Madras High Court has directed it to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation with interest to a bank employee, who lost an eye in a stone-pelting incident on the eve of a DMK bandh to protest party chief M Karunanidhi's arrest in 2001. Justice M Satyanarayanan passed the order yesterday while disposing of a petition by S Krishnaswamy, seeking a compensation of Rs 25 lakh from the state for the loss of vision and suffering caused to him by the injury inflicted on him on July 1, 2001. The judge said "The state government through an announcement had indicated that it had taken all necessary steps to maintain law and order problem and also ensured that public will not be put to any inconvenience on account of the bandh called for by DMK party following the arrest of DMK leader M Karunanidhi and also indicated that normal bus facilities would be in place." Th...

Clarifying that an injury does not always need to be physical, the Madras High Court has held that the parents of a minor girl who was allegedly abducted and married by her cousin which led to the suicide of the girl’s 12-year-old brother is entitled to compensation under the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme. A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and V. Bharathidasan made the clarification while hearing a habeas corpus plea moved by the minor girl’s parents alleging inaction on the part of police on the missing person complaint filed by them. According to the petitioner, his nephew had allegedly abducted his minor daughter last year and married her. Following this, his minor son allegedly committed suicide. He had filed a police complaint on November 18, 2015. Claiming inaction on part of the police he approached the High Court. Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/injury-need-not-be-physical-high-court/article8923612.ece

The law says that a contract to do an act, which turns out to be impossible of performance after the agreement, becomes void and the person who suffers must be compensated. If environment restrictions not contemplated in the contract frustrate a project and it becomes impossible or impracticable to implement it, the contractor deserves compensation, according to the Supreme Court. The contractor who could not undertake a housing project because of environment curbs not contemplated by the government at the time of signing the agreement was compensated in the judgment,

Uttarakhand High Court has recently held that a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim such compensation under both the Acts. Justice Servesh Kumar Gupta has dismissed an Appeal filed by Dalbir Lal who already got the compensation under Motor Accidents Claims who approached the Court seeking further compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act for the reason that he met an accident when he had already left his Office and was in the way to reach his home. Dismissing the Appeal the Court held that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates in so many words regarding claims for compensation of a person, who met with accident, in any manner, being an employee, then he may claim compensation under either Motor Vehicles Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act but he cannot be at liberty to claim such compensation under both the A...