Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

MADRAS HIGH COURT Enhances Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident Case, Citing “Serious Errors” in Previous Assessments

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the MADRAS HIGH COURT has enhanced the compensation awarded to a claimant in a motor vehicle accident case. The court noted “serious errors” in the assessments made by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal and the High Court, leading to a lower compensation amount being awarded initially.

The appellant, Sri Lakshmana Gowda B.N., had filed an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court heard arguments from both the appellant and the respondent, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and examined the records of the case.

Justice Aravind Kumar, delivering the judgment, stated, “The Tribunal committed a serious error in awarding abysmally less compensation contrary to the evidence on record.” The court found that the assessments of the claimant’s income and permanent disability were incorrect, resulting in an unjustifiably low compensation amount.

The court awarded additional compensation for pain and suffering, stating, “The compensation awarded towards ‘pain and suffering’ is on the lower side.” They also considered the claimant’s loss of future income, loss of marriage prospects, and loss of earnings during the laid-up period, recalculating the compensation amounts for these factors.

“The Tribunal fell in error in construing the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. instead of Rs. 8,000/- p.m.,” the court emphasized, highlighting the incorrect assessment of the claimant’s income.

 The final compensation awarded by the High Court was Rs. 15,94,812, with interest at 6% per annum. The court directed The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. To deposit the awarded amount within six weeks.

 Date of Decision: 06.03.2023

S.Amalraj  VS .State

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/amalraj-v-state-06-March-23-Karnt.-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News