Skip to main content

Court may award compensation greater than the one demanded by claimant if it deems it fit to do so

In Ravi @ Ravichandran vs V.P.Jayapal, the Appellant had suffered 60% disability due to an accident and the MACT had fixed an amount of Rs. 5,45,000/-. The Appellant appealed against the said amount and claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

The High Court opined that considering the disability the multiplier method should have been applied by the Tribunal and the current as well as future medical expenses, the compensation should be Rs.11,15,000/-.

On Insurance Company pointing out that the amount of compensation claimed itself is only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, the claimant is not entitled more than what is claimed, the court held that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274, there would be no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimants. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The proposition of law cannot be disputed. In case of injuries that too grievous injuries leading to disablement, the claimant would not have been in a position to assess the future consequences of those injuries and without doing that the claimant would not be in a position to estimate the future loss and therefore, just because of initial claim made is less, it cannot be contented that the claimant is not entitled to just compensation.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more