Skip to main content

Shock, pain factors in fixing accident relief: Tribunal

Besides injuries, other factors such as shock, pain, fear, trauma and agony of an accident victim too should be taken into account to determine compensation package, a motor accident claims tribunal said, awarding Rs 2.6 lakh compensation to a schoolgirl.

The matter relates to a road accident involving P Jasmin of Korrukkupet. On October 1, 2010, Jasmin, who was five years old then, was travelling in an autorickshaw in north Chennai when the vehicle dashed against a lorry. The girl was thrown off the vehicle and two fingers on her right hand had to be removed. Her father moved the tribunal seeking compensation from the vehicle owner C Sri Ram of Sowcarpet and its insurer United India Insurance.

The insurance company refuted compensation claims on the ground that the autorickshaw's fitness certificate expired a month before the accident, and its policy coverage too had expired. "The alleged injuries were superficial" and "the quantum of compensation sought was excessively high," said the company. It also said the lorry driver had not been impleaded in the proceedings.

Rejecting the arguments, judge J Chandran said as the girl's little and ring fingers had been amputated, resulting in her losing her hand's grip, she could not go to school with "fun, joy and enjoyment." Further, she lost her ability to participate in sports and her future career options were marred as she would not be fit for a job in uniformed services, he said.

Fixing the level of her disability at 10%, the court awarded her the compensation for future loss of income, pain and sufferings, extra nourishment, medical expenses and permanent disability.

If the vehicle owner did not renew the certificate of fitness, it was a breach of rules and he was solely liable to pay compensation, said the court, adding that United India could realize the amount from Sri Ram.

It was the autorickshaw driver, and not the girl, who was responsible for the accident, the judge said. He also rejected the argument that the lorry driver ought to have been impleaded as a party in the case.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Home/Lok-Sabha-Elections-2014/News/Shock-pain-factors-in-fixing-accident-relief-Tribunal/articleshow/33762161.cms

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...

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.

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 ...