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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more