Legal Reference Library

A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr.B.C.Jain vs Maulana Saleem has laid down seven-point landmark guidelines for the police and the subordinate courts over handling of cases in which the government doctors are accused of patient’s death due to negligence. The seven-point guidelines issued by the court were :- 1) That, all allegations relating to negligent conduct on the part of a Government Doctor for which a prosecution u/s. 304-A IPC and/or its cognate provisions, or under such other law involving penal consequences is sought, the same shall be enquired into by a Medical Board consisting of at least three doctors, constituted by the Dean of any Government Medical College in the State of Madhya Pradesh, upon the request of the Police, Administration or the directions of a Court/Tribunal/Commission, within seven days of such requisition 2) The doctor so selected by the Dean of the Medical College concerned to sit on the Medical Board, shal...

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...

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...

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...

The Supreme Court in ACC Limited (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Co. Ltd) Vs. Global Cements Ltd. was called upon to decide whether the arbitration agreement survives in case of the death of the named arbitrator? While deciding the question in the affirmative, it was held as under; 11. Clause 21 of the Agreement indisputably is an arbitration agreement which falls under Section 7 of the Act. The intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement can therefore clearly be gathered from clause 21 of the Agreement. Clause 21 clearly indicates an agreement on the part of the parties to refer the disputes to the named arbitrators in the Agreement. 12. This Court in Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander [(2007) 5 SCC 719] in a clear exposition of law has laid down the principles to be borne in mind while interpreting an arbitration agreement under Clause 7 of the Act. Existence of an agreement is not in dispute, the question is about its enforceability on the death of t...

Awarding Rs 51.75 lakh to a married woman for the accidental death of her brother, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has held that legal heirs, even if not dependent on the deceased, are eligible for compensation. The claimant, Divya Alok Srivastav informed Thane MACT that on May 23, 2007, her brother 237-year-old brother Abhisek Kumar, who worked with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance and earned about Rs 4 lakh salary per year, had hired a taxi One Sai Network Agency and proceeded to Shirdi along with her parents to offer prayers. The next morning they were on way to Pune when car driver Sagar Vilas Lokhande, who was allegedly speeding, lost control over the vehicle which rammed into a tree at roadside. In the accident, the claimant’s father, mother, brother Abhishek and the taxi driver died on the spot. Divya alleged that the accident occurred due to the driver’s sole negligence, and that she was eligible for compensation for her brother’s death. The taxi owner did not contest...

Supreme Court in State of M.P. vs. Goloo Raikwar, has held that when medical report establishes that the injuries inflicted intentionally on the deceased by the accused, were cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, Thirdly of Section 300 IPC is attracted, even if no significant injury had been inflicted on a vital part of the body and when the accused could not be said to have the intention of causing death. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices J.S. Kehar and C. Nagappan was hearing an appeal by the State against the High Court Judgment which had altered the conviction recorded by Trial court under Section 302 IPC to Section Part I IPC. Referring to State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr. (1976) 4 SCC 382), the Court said “In the present case, the fact that the accused hurled country made bombs, has been established. The incised injuries caused to Hari were intentional and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of natu...

The Supreme Court has held that the sufficiency of injury to cause death must be proved to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and that cannot be inferred from the fact that death has taken place. Three Judge Bench comprising of the Chief Justice, T.S. Thakur, Justices A.K. Sikri and R. Banumati, in Nankaunoo vs State of UP, modified conviction of an a person who was convicted for murder as that under Section 304 Part 1 IPC. In this case, the appellant was accused of killing the deceased using a country made pistol which was never recovered during investigation. Relying on the oral testimony and medical report, the Trial Court had convicted the accused. The High Court affirmed conviction. He approached Apex Court. The Apex Court observed that in the light of unimpeachable oral evidence which is corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of ‘country made pistol’ does not materially affect the case of the prosecution. The Court added that any omission on t...

Himachal Pradesh High Court- Considering the appeal with regard to grant of compensation to the claimants, a bench of Mansoor Ahmad Mir CJ, dismissed the appeal and held that the rights of victims of vehicular accidents cannot be defeated on flimsy grounds and the courts should not succumb to the procedural wrangles and tangles, technicalities and mystic maybes which in any way defeat the rights of the claimants. The Court observed that the aim and object of granting compensation is for the benefit of the victims/ persons, from whom the source of dependency has been taken away and who have lost their source of income and are deprived of the love and affection and hope of future because of the death of their kith and kin. The Court further noted that the Courts or the Tribunals have to decide such matters as early as possible, that too, summarily in terms of the mandate of Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides mechanism to determine claim petitions and appeals. The...