Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

High Court of Delhi Enhances Compensation for Traffic Accident Victim, Recognizes Practical Challenges in Proving Domestic Workers’ Income

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi has revised the compensation awarded to Smt. Geeta, a victim of a traffic accident involving an auto-rickshaw. The court notably increased the compensation from Rs. 6,57,197 to Rs. 9,58,519, recognizing the unique challenges faced by domestic workers in proving their income.

Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, observed, “The requirement of proof even in situations where there are unskilled workers are paid in cash, cannot work to the prejudice of the claimant.” This statement highlights the court’s sensitivity to the realities of informal employment, particularly in domestic work, where formal documentation of wages is often absent.

The case, SMT GEETA VERSUS MOHD JAMALUDDIN & ORS, revolved around the appellant Smt. Geeta’s claim for compensation following a severe accident on July 19, 2005. Suffering extensive injuries, including a 71% permanent disability, the appellant initially faced challenges in her claim due to the absence of formal proof of her income as a domestic worker.

The High Court’s decision marks a departure from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) earlier judgment. While MACT had based the compensation on minimum wages, citing the lack of documentary evidence of the appellant’s claimed income, the High Court took a more empathetic view.

Justice Dayal further added, “A domestic servant will be paid in cash and there will be no documentation either on the side of the employer or the employee for receipt of such wages.” This acknowledgment has been hailed by legal experts as a progressive step towards understanding the nuances of unorganized labor sectors.

The court also addressed other aspects of the case, such as the functional disability assessment, which it increased to 60% from the original 71% permanent disability, considering the appellant’s occupation and the extent of her injuries.

Decision:    18 December, 2023

SMT GEETA VS MOHD JAMALUDDIN & ORS       

 

Latest Legal News