Non-Disclosure Of Medical Deformity While Seeking Re-Appointment Amounts To Deliberate Suppression, Termination Restored: Supreme Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Suit Based On Unregistered Gift Deed Not Maintainable; Plaint Liable For Rejection: Andhra Pradesh High Court Accused Has No Blanket Immunity From Re-Arrest If Initial Arrest Was Declared Illegal Only On Technical Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court Father’s Obligation To Maintain Minor Child Under Section 125 CrPC Is Absolute Even If Mother Is Also Earning: Uttarakhand High Court Variation In Physical Signature No Ground To Reject Bid If Submitted Via Secure Digital Signature Certificate: Orissa High Court Management Cannot Re-Examine Selection After Candidate Alters Position By Leaving Previous Job: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Production Of E-Way Bills Not Proof Of Physical Movement Of Goods; GST Registration Can Be Cancelled For Fake ITC Claims: Madras High Court Employer Cannot Abuse Unequal Bargaining Power To Deny Back Wages For Period Of Eligibility: Supreme Court Restores Dues Of MSRTC Employee Entire Bank Account Of Educational Institution Cannot Be Frozen Merely Because It Received Fees From Accused Parent: Karnataka High Court CARA Must Facilitate Relocation Of Children Adopted Under HAMA; Cannot Abdicate Responsibility By Issuing Mere 'Support Letters': Delhi High Court Valid Caste Certificate Issued By Competent Authority Is Sine Qua Non To Establish Offence Under SC/ST Act: Chhattisgarh High Court Shifting Defense From 'No Transaction' To 'Transaction Not Proved' Prima Facie Shows Dishonest Intent Since Inception: Calcutta High Court Sugar Exports Under Specific Permission Cannot Be Treated As 'Restricted' To Deny RoDTEP Benefits: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Of Man Who Killed Bystander While Aiming At Another; Invokes 'Doctrine Of Transfer Of Malice' SDO Cannot Reclassify Public Utility Land To Grant Private Leases; Such Pattas Are Void Ab Initio: Supreme Court DNA Test Report Prevails Over Presumption Of Legitimacy Under Section 112 Evidence Act If Report Is Undisputed: Supreme Court Foreign Summary Judgment Passed After Refusing Leave To Defend Is Not 'On Merits' Under Section 13 CPC: Supreme Court Constitutional Safeguards Don’t End At Prison Gates: Supreme Court Extends Mandatory Disability Rights Directions To All States & UTs Courts Not Bound By Low Govt Rates For Prosthetic Limbs; Claimants Entitled To Choose Private Centres For 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Reject Plaint Over Insufficient Court Fee Without Giving Mandatory Opportunity To Correct Valuation: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders Immediate Removal Of Illegal Encroachments On National Highways; Bans New Dhabas Within Right Of Way

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