Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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,

 

Similar News