Skip to main content

Himachal Court enhances compensation four times over for accident victim

A housewife is the backbone of a home - HC

Not satisfied with a meager compensation of Rs 3 lacs for an accident victim who suffered permanent disability, the Himachal Pradesh High Court today enhanced it to Rs 12.5 lakhs.

Allowing an appeal made by the victim, the single Bench of Acting Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs is meager and required to be enhanced keeping in view all factors necessary in assessing the compensation.

The victim met with anaccident on July 30, 2001 in which she had suffered multiple grievous injuries, back bone and spinal joint dislocation, which made her life miserable.

In his order the judge observed that a housewife was the backbone of a home, maintaining the domestic home and takes all steps to keep her husband, children and other family members united, in good health and joyous mood. She was not only deprived of the income from domestic work and selling milk, but also had to engage a helper for domestic help. She has become permanently disabled, helpless, hapless and a burden on others.

The High Court awarded Rs. 3 lacs for pain and suffering undergone by claimant, Rs. 75,000 for medical treatment, Rs. 75,000 for future medical treatment, Rs. 1.5 lacs under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, Rs. 4.80 lacs were awarded under the head of future income, Rs. 1.44 lacs under the head of wages of attendant, Rs. 20,000 under the head of Transport charges and Rs. 10,000 under the head of special diet, and thus a total of Rs. 12.54 lacs were awarded to the Claimant with interest @ 7.5 %.

Article referred: http://hillpost.in/2014/03/himachal-court-enhances-compensation-four-times-over-for-accident-victim/98428/

Comments

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...

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...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...