Skip to main content

‘Marriage loss’ in damages claim from insurance - SC

The Supreme Court has awarded an additional Rs 75,000 to an unmarried embroidery worker who lost a leg in a road accident, saying “loss of marriage prospects” should be taken into account while calculating damages in such cases.

Justices S.J. Mukhopadhyaya and V. Gopala Gowda also awarded Sanjay Kumar Rs 1 lakh for “loss of amenities”, enhancing the total amount to Rs 14.59 lakh, after the bench had nearly doubled the Rs 6.35-lakh compensation fixed by Delhi High Court.

Kumar, a bachelor, had sought additional compensation on the ground that the accident had hurt his marriage prospects but the high court had declined to consider the plea.

The top court disagreed. “On the point of loss of marriage prospects, we feel that it is a major loss, keeping in mind the young age of the appellant…” the bench said, adding the high court had “gravely erred in not awarding adequate compensation separately under this head”, clubbing it instead under “loss of future enjoyment of life” and “pain and suffering”.

“We thereby award Rs 75,000 towards loss of marriage prospects,” it said in a recent judgment.

“Further, it is necessary to award an amount under the head of ‘loss of amenities’ also as the appellant will definitely deal with loss of future amenities as he has lost a leg due to the accident. The injury has permanently disabled the appellant, thereby reducing his enjoyment of life and the full pursuit of all the activities he engaged in prior to the accident.

“We thereby, award a sum of Rs 1,00,000 towards ‘loss of amenities’,” Justice Gowda, writing the judgment, said.

Kumar’s right leg had to be amputated after a rashly driven truck hit him on September 28, 2005, on a Delhi street. Employed as an embroidery worker, he had claimed Rs 15 lakh from the insurance company and the vehicle’s owner.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, awarded him Rs 4.83 lakh. He appealed in the high court, which enhanced the amount to Rs 6.35 lakh. He then moved the apex court.

While awarding the compensation, the tribunal and the high court had both treated Kumar as an unskilled worker in an unorganised sector. The apex court differed. “In our considered view, the appellant is entitled to be awarded compensation based on the wages for a skilled worker, as he is an embroiderer and the same cannot be considered an unskilled work.

“The minimum wages in Delhi for a skilled worker as on 01.08.2005 was Rs 3,589.90 per month. The appellant has claimed that he was earning Rs 4,500 per month from his work as an embroiderer.

“We will accept his claim as it is not practical to expect a worker in the unorganised sector to provide documentary evidence of his monthly income.”

The court said the appellant would “need assistance” to move around, “regular check-ups” and “most likely use a crutch to walk”. All this “will incur expenses”, the bench said, enhancing the compensation to Rs 14.59 lakh.

The amount includes 9 per cent interest from the date Kumar filed his plea for compensation before the tribunal.

Article referred: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140126/jsp/nation/story_17866653.jsp#.UuaHqxC6aM8

Comments

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...