Skip to main content

Accident compensation must restore normalcy as far as possible

The Bombay High Court has observed that the object of awarding monetary compensation to a family which has lost its sole bread-winner is to ensure that the surviving members can lead a normal life at least financially.

"The object of awarding compensation is to restore the dependents/claimants to the pre-accidental position as far as possible by compensating the victim's family in monetary terms for the loss of their only bread-earner member," Justice A P Bhangale said in a ruling last week.

The court increased the compensation awarded to a family from Ratnagiri from Rs 8.8 lakh to Rs 13.8 lakh. The order was passed on an appeal filed by Darshana Kanavaje, who lost her husband, Ganesh, in an accident in 2008 when a state transport bus rammed into him.

In May 2010, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Ratnagiri directed the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to pay Rs 8.8 lakh to the family, which comprised Darshana, the couple's three minor children, and Ganesh's parents.

Advocate Rajesh Patil, her lawyer, argued that Ganesh, who ran a grocery shop, was a regular Income Tax payer. Ganesh's tax consultant deposed before MACT to state that his income was gradually increasing and his average annual income was calculable at Rs 90,000 per year.

Justice Bhangale, while enhancing the amount, observed that it was the duty of the tribunal to award fair and reasonable compensation.

"In such cases the dependents are often left behind to face impoverishment due to sudden impecunious circumstances after having lost their sole bread-earner. They need to satisfy the basic needs. It is indisputable that increasing inflation makes it increasingly difficult for people to survive," the High Court observed.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/accident-compensation-must-restore-normalcy-as-far-as-possible-113110700794_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more