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

Loss of Consortium: High Court Awards Enhanced Compensation with Interest in Rash Driving Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment High Court of Karnataka, presided over by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.I. Arun, enhanced compensation in a case involving a fatal accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The court recognized the concept of “loss of consortium” and awarded an increased compensation along with interest.

The case, filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, pertained to an accident that occurred on October 14, 2018. In this tragic incident, a young man named Chetan lost his life while riding as a pillion on a motorcycle. The court’s judgment came in response to an appeal filed by the deceased’s parents seeking higher compensation.

The court, while delivering the judgment, made several key observations on legal points. The Hon’ble Justice M.I. Arun noted the importance of the “loss of dependency” concept and emphasized the application of a multiplier in determining compensation. The court stated, “Loss of dependency is a significant component in compensation claims, and it should be calculated diligently.”

Furthermore, the court recognized the concept of “loss of consortium” and awarded each petitioner a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards this aspect. The judgment quoted, “In legal parlance, ‘consortium’ is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection, and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts.”

The court also upheld the compensation awarded for medical expenses, transportation of the deceased’s body, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. It found no reason to disagree with the Tribunal’s decision in these matters.

In a significant move, the court ordered an interest rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition before the Tribunal until realization. This decision aligns with the court’s commitment to ensuring justice for the victims and their families.

The judgment concluded with a clear directive to the insurance company. The court ordered the insurance company to pay the enhanced compensation within a six-week timeframe, providing relief to the grieving parents.

Date of Decision: 14th December, 2023

LAKSHMAMMA VS RANGASWAMY

 

Latest Legal News