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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more