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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more