Skip to main content

Shock, pain factors in fixing accident relief: Tribunal

Besides injuries, other factors such as shock, pain, fear, trauma and agony of an accident victim too should be taken into account to determine compensation package, a motor accident claims tribunal said, awarding Rs 2.6 lakh compensation to a schoolgirl.

The matter relates to a road accident involving P Jasmin of Korrukkupet. On October 1, 2010, Jasmin, who was five years old then, was travelling in an autorickshaw in north Chennai when the vehicle dashed against a lorry. The girl was thrown off the vehicle and two fingers on her right hand had to be removed. Her father moved the tribunal seeking compensation from the vehicle owner C Sri Ram of Sowcarpet and its insurer United India Insurance.

The insurance company refuted compensation claims on the ground that the autorickshaw's fitness certificate expired a month before the accident, and its policy coverage too had expired. "The alleged injuries were superficial" and "the quantum of compensation sought was excessively high," said the company. It also said the lorry driver had not been impleaded in the proceedings.

Rejecting the arguments, judge J Chandran said as the girl's little and ring fingers had been amputated, resulting in her losing her hand's grip, she could not go to school with "fun, joy and enjoyment." Further, she lost her ability to participate in sports and her future career options were marred as she would not be fit for a job in uniformed services, he said.

Fixing the level of her disability at 10%, the court awarded her the compensation for future loss of income, pain and sufferings, extra nourishment, medical expenses and permanent disability.

If the vehicle owner did not renew the certificate of fitness, it was a breach of rules and he was solely liable to pay compensation, said the court, adding that United India could realize the amount from Sri Ram.

It was the autorickshaw driver, and not the girl, who was responsible for the accident, the judge said. He also rejected the argument that the lorry driver ought to have been impleaded as a party in the case.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Home/Lok-Sabha-Elections-2014/News/Shock-pain-factors-in-fixing-accident-relief-Tribunal/articleshow/33762161.cms

Comments

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

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

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