Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

P&H HC Criticizes lower compensation awarded by Tribunal to injured claimant in motor accident case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On April 17, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered its judgment in FAO No.1187 of 2019 (O&M) in a case filed by Jaswant Singh against Rachit Gulati and others. The appellant had challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, vide award dated October 29, 2018, after he was injured in a road accident in 2016.

The appellant had claimed that he was driving his motorcycle on the correct side of the road when a car driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, struck him while he had parked on the side of the road to drink water. The respondent denied the accident and the respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the accident's factum.

The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.11,86,208 to the appellant under various heads. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the appellant filed an appeal, challenging the Tribunal's compensation amount.

During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant-appellant filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence. The additional evidence was a disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, showing the appellant's disability to be 51%.

The High Court heard the arguments of the appellant's counsel and the respondent No.3-Insurance Company's counsel and perused the evidence on record.

The High Court observed that the appellant had undergone eight surgeries and remained admitted in various hospitals for about a year. The Court also noted that the appellant's functional disability was assessed as 25%, and the appellant's vocation as a coaching centre operator was affected by the injury. Hence, an addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., was warranted.

The High Court enhanced the compensation amount and awarded Rs.35,48,608 to the appellant under various heads, including medical bills, future treatment, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and attendant charges. The enhanced amount included future prospects of Rs.1,40,000, a multiplier of 17, and an amount of Rs.2,00,000 towards loss of amenities of life.

The High Court allowed the appeal, modifying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and directed the enhanced amount to attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

Jaswant Singh VS  Rachit Gulati and others.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2.pdf"]

Latest Legal News