Skip to main content

SC Yardstick used to Determine Compensation



Only one-fourth of an accident victim’s income should be deducted towards personal expenses while fixing compensation if the victim’s family consists of more than four members, the Madras HC has held.

Applying the theory prescribed by the SC in the Sarala Verma case, a division bench of justices S Rajeswaran and S Vaidyanathan gave the ruling while enhancing the compensation awarded by a lower court from `19.07 lakh to `24 lakh.

Vijayan, husband of Jaya, met with an accident in Cuddalore in  2011. He later succumbed at a hospital. Jaya and daughters Uma Devi, Soniya Devi and Saranya Devi moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking `41 lakh as compensation.

The tribunal, however, awarded them only `19.07 lakh by an order dated October 19, 2012. It deducted one-third of the victim’s income towards personal expenses and quantified `18.72 lakh under ‘loss of dependency’.  It awarded no compensation under the ‘loss of marriage’ head.

While Vijayan’s family moved the HC contending that the compensation was less, the insurance company - Royal Sundaram Alliance - filed an appeal claiming the award was much higher.

Applying the yardstick prescribed by the SC in various judgments stating that only one-fourth of the victim’s income be deducted towards his personal expenses if the number of his dependents was more than four, the bench increased the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ from `18.72 lakh to `24.64 lakh. Under the head ‘loss of marriage’,  it awarded `1 lakh. It also increased the amount under various other counts and fixed the total compensation at `27.64 lakh.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/SC-Yardstick-used-to-Determine-Compensation/2014/04/14/article2167431.ece

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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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