Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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