Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

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"]

Similar News