Skip to main content

MACT Claims: HC Should Assign Reasons For Not Granting Enhancement Of Compensation Or Reduction

In Sudarsan Puhan vs. Jayanta Ku. Mohanty, the issue before the Supreme Court was that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.24, 62,065 to a youth who, as a result of the accident, had to suffer “paraplegia” (injury in the spinal cord). Both the claimant and the Insurer approached the Apex court in Appeal. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed as infructuous, while the insurer’s appeal was partly allowed reducing the compensation to Rs.20, 00,000.

Before the Apex court, it was contended on behalf of claimant that, the High court neither set out the facts, nor dealt with any issue, nor appreciated the ocular and documentary evidence much less in its proper perspective, nor examined the legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case and nor rendered its findings on any contentious issues decided by the Tribunal except to observe “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties” and “I feel, the interest of justice would be best served if the awarded compensation amount of Rs.24,62,065 is modified and reduced to Rs.20,00,000”

The Supreme Court observed that mere perusal of the afore-quoted order of the High Court would show that the High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties in detail, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged except to mention them, nor took note of the grounds raised by the claimant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case and proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation.

Article referred: https://www.livelaw.in/mact-claims-hc-should-assign-reasons-for-not-granting-enhancement-of-compensation-or-reduction-sc-read-judgment/

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