Skip to main content

M.V. Act is beneficial and welfare legislation and court is duty bound to award “ just compensation ”

In The State of Maharashtra V/s. Smt. Kamaladevi Kailashchandra Kaushal, the Bombay High Court after 21 Years hiked compensation amount awarded by MACT.

Justice MS Sonak was hearing an appeal filed by the state and others against the MACT order dated August 5, 1995. 

In the MACT order, the appellants were directed to jointly pay a compensation of Rs.1,65,000 to the widow, mother and children of the deceased.

In the appeal among the points raised before the High Court was whether in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objections on the part of the claimants, the appeal court is entitled to award ‘just compensation’ to the claimants, in the appeal instituted by the owner?

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) the High Court held that section 166 of the MV Act deals with “just compensation” and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made, a party should not be deprived from getting “just compensation” in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the M.V. Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty bound and entitled to award “just compensation” irrespective of the fact whether any plea was raised in respect of the claimant or not. Accordingly, the point of determination is liable to be decided against the appellants and in favour of the claimants.

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