Skip to main content

Deduction in mishap claims may vary: SC

While determining road accident claims, the amount to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses of the victim may vary as per the number of the dependents, the Supreme Court has held. 

The apex court also held that in such accident cases where deceased is aged below 40 and had a permanent job, an addition of 50 per cent of the actual salary should be made towards future prospects to the current income. 

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R M Lodha observed that a proportion of a man's earning, which he saves or spends exclusively for maintenance of others, does not form a part of his "living expenses". 

"One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does.

"The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependant members in the family...," the bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur, said. 

The apex court also held that in such accident cases where deceased is aged below 40 and had a permanent job, an addition of 50 per cent of the actual salary should be made towards future prospects to the victim's current income. 

"We approve the method that an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30 per cent if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years," the bench said.

The judgement came on an appeal wherein a two judge bench of the apex court had referred to the larger bench the issue of whether the multiplier specified in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 should be taken as the guide for calculation of amount of compensation payable in such cases. 

The two judge bench, in its referral order passed on July 23, 2009, had said due to the "divergence of opinion" and this aspect of the matter having not been considered in the earlier decisions, the issue shall be decided by a larger bench. 

 Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/deduction-in-mishap-claims-may-vary-sc_848030.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more