A Will That Silences Legal Heirs Without Cause Cannot Speak the Truth of the Testator’s Intent: Orissa High Court Rejects Solemnity of Registered Will Conviction Can Be Set Aside Even in Non-Compoundable Offences If Parties Settle: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC Mere Absence of Ticket or Station Report Not Fatal to Claim: Bombay High Court Says Railway Claims Can Be Proved by Circumstantial Evidence Judgment of Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Merely Because A Different View Is Possible, Unless It’s Perverse Or Ignores Material Evidence: Himachal High Court Courts Cannot Reopen Admissions Once Deadline Expires: Orissa High Court Rejects SEBC Nursing Aspirants' Plea Filed Post Cut-Off A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.26 Crores for Fatal Accident Involving Pillion Rider Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates No Customs Duty Without Clear Authority Of Law: Supreme Court Quashes Levy On SEZ Electricity Supplied To Domestic Tariff Area Owner's Admission Cannot Be Brushed Aside to Deny Compensation: Supreme Court Reinstates ₹3.7 Lakh Award to Family of Deceased Driver Benefit Of Doubt Must Prevail Where Eyewitness Testimony Is Infirm And Contradict Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Double-Murder Convict A Mere Error in Bail Orders Cannot Tarnish a Judge’s Career: Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal of Judicial Officer for Granting Bail under Excise Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proven—Mere Pleading Is Not Enough For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Returning Expired Stamp Papers Is No Refund in Law: Supreme Court Directs State to Pay ₹3.99 Lakhs Despite Limitation under UP Stamp Rules Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 Does Not Extinguish Arbitration Clause in Leave and License Agreements: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Unilateral Appointment Void Ab Initio; Participation in Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver: Supreme Court Section 21 Arbitration Act Is Not a Gatekeeper of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ₹2 Crore Arbitral Award Against Kerala Government

Delhi High Court Upholds Motor Accident Compensation Award, Rejects Challenges to Negligence and Tax Deduction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld a Motor Accident Compensation Award, dismissing challenges raised against findings of negligence and tax deduction on the deceased's income. The case, MAC.APP. 774/2017 & CM APPL. 41950/2018, involved the accidental death of Smt. Shalini Bhatia, who was involved in a collision with an offending vehicle. The Court carefully considered various legal aspects and ruled on each issue.

The appellant challenged the finding that the accident resulted from the offending vehicle's rash and negligent driving. The Court analyzed the credibility of the eyewitness testimony (PW-2) and found it to be reliable. The Court stated, "I also do not find any inconsistency in his statement, or any material contradiction which may lead this Court to, in any manner, doubt the testimony of PW-2."

The appellant contended that tax should be deducted from the deceased's income for determining the loss of dependency. The Court agreed, stating, "Accordingly, the award of compensation on the head of loss of dependency in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3, shall stand modified and reduced..."

Challenges were raised regarding compensation granted under non-pecuniary heads. The Court acknowledged the need for re-assessment, remarking, "The compensation payable to the respondent nos.1 to 3 on account of non-pecuniary heads is re-assessed as..."

The appellant questioned the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. The Court defended the discretion vested in the Tribunal, stating, "Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to direct the payment of simple interest on the compensation determined, at such rate and from such date... The learned Tribunal may also take into account as to whether the claimants... were required to borrow from financial institutions."

Delhi High Court upheld the Motor Accident Compensation Award, emphasizing that each case should consider surrounding circumstances when determining interest rates. The Court's decision has clarified important legal points regarding negligence, tax deduction, and interest rates in motor accident compensation cases.

Date of Decision: 11 December 2023

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD  VS PUNEET BHATIA & ORS  

 

Latest Legal News