Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

"Motor Accident Claims: High Court Revises Compensation, Cites 'Discretion of the Court' in Personal Expense Deduction"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 August 17, 2023 - In a landmark decision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted a total compensation of Rs. 8,44,508 to Daya alias Dayawanti, the widow of Sarwan Kumar who died in a motor vehicular accident. The Court observed, "it is the discretion of the court to decide the deduction for personal expenses," and decided that a deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses would be just and fair in this case.

Daya alias Dayawanti had filed an appeal for the modification of the award dated 28.02.2007, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). She sought an enhancement of the amount of compensation initially awarded by the Tribunal, which was Rs. 3,79,000. The accident had occurred on January 10, 2005, when a canter collided with Sarwan Kumar's truck, leading to his immediate death.

The key issues addressed by the Court included the determination of the monthly salary of the deceased, enhancement of the income on account of future prospects, the deduction of personal expenses, and compensation on account of loss of estate.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth stated, "The income of the deceased should have been assessed according to the DC rates prevalent at the time of the accident, which were Rs. 5,812.75/- per month." The Court also emphasized that in cases where there is only one dependent, the deduction for personal expenses is at the discretion of the court.

The Court partly modified the award of the Tribunal and granted a total compensation of Rs. 8,44,508 to the appellant, along with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The appeal was allowed with the terms indicated in the judgement.

The judgement cited several key cases, including Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, Sangtari Muleem v. Karnail Singh, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., and Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others.

This decision is seen as a significant step in ensuring fair compensation for victims or their families in motor accident cases.

D.D- August 17, 2023

Daya @ Dayawanti vs Arjun and others

 

Similar News