MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Assessment of Compensation Cannot Be Done with Mathematical Precision:  Supreme Court Increases Motor Accident Compensation to ₹38,81,500

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India revisited the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident case, involving the death of Ravisankar, a multi-faceted individual engaged in agriculture, dairy farming, and government contracting. The apex court increased the compensation to ₹38,81,500, stressing the need for a reasonable assessment of compensation in such cases.

The legal point in this judgment revolved around the assessment of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case was primarily concerned with the determination of the income of the deceased, Ravisankar, and the consequent calculation of the compensation due to his dependents.

Ravisankar, aged 52, the sole breadwinner of his family, met with a fatal accident. His dependents filed a claim for compensation amounting to ₹1,00,00,000. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal originally awarded ₹51,64,550, but this was reduced by the High Court to ₹22,48,000. The reduction was primarily due to the reassessment of the deceased’s monthly income from ₹50,000 to ₹20,000 by the High Court.

Income of Deceased: The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, observed that Ravisankar's diverse income sources justified a higher income assessment. It noted, "to make the lives of his family members comfortable, the deceased was multi-tasking and he was not engaged in a 9.00 to 5.00 P.M. job."

Methodology of Compensation: The court followed the guidelines under the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case laws, including the Sarla Verma case, for calculating compensation. It emphasized that compensation assessment "cannot be done with mathematical precision" and should be just and fair.

Compensation Breakdown: The Supreme Court reassessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹35,000 and applied a multiplier of 11 considering his age. The total compensation calculated was ₹38,81,500, including additional compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium.

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's judgment, increasing the compensation to ₹38,81,500, with 8% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. The court underscored the importance of a realistic and humane approach in assessing compensation in such cases.

Date of Decision: 6th March 2024

Vethambal and Others v. The Oriental Insurance Company and Others,

 

Latest Legal News