Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana 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