Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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