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

P&H High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case, Citing Inadequate Award

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has enhanced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim, deeming the earlier award as inadequate. The judgment, pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Amarjot Bhatti, addressed the appeal filed by Raghbir Singh against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra.

Inadequate Compensation for Severe Injuries

The accident, which occurred in 2006, resulted in Raghbir Singh sustaining multiple injuries, including fractures and muscle tears. After undergoing extensive medical treatment in various hospitals, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 4,21,500/- along with interest. However, the appellant contended that the awarded amount was insufficient to cover the medical expenses and the extent of disability suffered.

Enhanced Compensation for Medical Expenses and Disability

The High Court carefully examined the medical bills and treatment records from Apna Hospital, Kurukshetra, and S.P.S. Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana, and upheld the awarded compensation for medical expenses, stating, "The compensation of Rs. 3,21,500/- granted for medical expenditure does not require any interference."

However, regarding the permanent disability suffered by Raghbir Singh, the Court observed, "The appellant suffered 41% disability in knee, ankle, and muscle wasting in the left leg. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disability. The appellant is entitled to an additional Rs. 94,000/-."

Loss of Income and Other Expenses Recognized

Highlighting the impact of the accident on the appellant's profession as a shopkeeper, the High Court granted compensation for loss of income, attendant charges, transportation, and special diet, which the Tribunal had not considered. The Court stated, "Considering the seat of injury as well as his profession, the functional disability is taken as 15%. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 5,000/- for attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, and Rs. 10,000/- for special diet."

Future Medical Treatment Claim Not Established

While the appellant claimed compensation for potential future medical treatments, the Court observed a lack of supporting evidence and did not award compensation for this aspect.

Total Compensation Increased to Rs. 5,60,500/-

Taking all aspects into consideration, the High Court modified the award passed by the Tribunal and increased the total compensation to Rs. 5,60,500/-, including interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till realization.

Date of Decision: 24th July 2023

Raghbir Singh vs Dharmender Etc.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Raghbir_Singh_vs_Dharmender_Etc_on_24_July_2023_PH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News