Skip to main content

State govt must compensate accident victim if accused is poor: SC

If in case of a death due to rash and negligent driving, the driver is unable to pay adequate compensation to the victim's family because of his poor financial status, the state government must step in and pay the amount, the Supreme Court has ruled.

"We are of the view that where the accused is unable to pay adequate compensation, the court ought to have awarded compensation under Section 357A from the funds available under the Victim Compensation Scheme framed under the said section," a bench of justices T S Thakur and A K Goel said.

It increased the amount of compensation awarded by Himachal Pradesh high court to family members of a girl who died in a road accident from Rs 40,000 to Rs 4 lakh. Considering the poor financial health of the convicted truck driver, the bench directed him to pay Rs one lakh and asked the state government to pay Rs three lakh.

The bench said if the driver failed to pay the amount, he had to undergo six months' jail term and in that case the entire compensation of Rs 4 lakh would be paid by the state government.

"We modify the impugned order passed by the high court and enhance the compensation to be paid by the driver to Rs1 lakh to be paid within four months failing which the sentence awarded by the court of sessions shall stand revived," it said.

"In addition, we direct the state of Himachal Pradesh to pay interim compensation of Rs 3 lakh. In case the driver fails to pay any part of the compensation, that part of compensation will also be paid by the state so that the heirs of the victim get total sum of Rs 4 lakh towards compensation. The amount already paid may be adjusted," the bench said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/State-govt-must-compensate-accident-victim-if-accused-is-poor-SC/articleshow/46438256.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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

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