IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

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