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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more