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

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