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

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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more