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

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

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more