Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

"Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds the Sanctity of Just Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accidents"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment that underscores the importance of fair compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Sushil Kukreja, delivered a significant verdict on March 12, 2024. The court heard appeals (FAOs No. 20 & 36 of 2014) from both the United India Insurance Company Limited and the claimant, Luxman, in relation to an accident that resulted in severe injuries to Luxman.

The case, originally adjudicated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, saw the tribunal award compensation of Rs. 8,96,694 to the claimant. Both parties appealed for a reassessment of the compensation amount, leading to the High Court's involvement.

In his judgment, Justice Kukreja emphasized, "The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident." This statement highlights the court's commitment to ensuring fair and adequate compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents.

The judgment considered several critical factors, including the claimant's employment as a supervisor, his earnings, age, and the extent of his permanent disability. The court meticulously applied legal principles established by the Supreme Court in cases like Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and others, and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Gajender Yadav and others, to reassess the compensation.

Justice Kukreja, further observing the nuances of the case, stated, "Loss of earning capacity of a person who has suffered permanent disability depends upon several factors like the kind of disability suffered, the occupation of the injured, age of the injured and similar other factors."

In its modified verdict, the court increased compensation under specific heads while maintaining other terms of the original award, including the interest component. This decision marks a significant step towards ensuring that victims of motor vehicle accidents are justly compensated for their losses and sufferings.

The verdict has been welcomed by legal experts and the public alike, as it reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding the rights and welfare of accident victims. It sets a precedent for future cases involving motor vehicle accident compensation and highlights the court's active role in determining just compensation.

Date of Decision: 12-03-2024

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. LUXMAN AND OTHERS

Similar News