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 Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable

Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Enhanced Compensation in Motor Accident Claims Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: 18th April 2023

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment delivered by Justice Archana Puri, has awarded enhanced compensation in a motor accident claims case involving the death of Vidya Devi and injuries sustained by Kitabo. The appeals, FAO-8657 of 2014 (O&M) and FAO-10258-2014 (O&M), emanated from a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had granted compensation only to Jagwa Ram, the husband of the deceased, for the death of Vidya Devi, while denying any compensation to Kitabo for her alleged injuries. However, the High Court found the denial of compensation for the loss of dependence to be wrong and held that even major married and earning sons, though not fully dependent on the deceased, are entitled to claim compensation as legal representatives.

Justice Puri, referring to the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender (2020) 11 SCC 356, emphasized that the legal representatives of the deceased have the right to apply for compensation, regardless of their level of dependency. The court highlighted that dependency includes not only financial dependency but also other forms of dependency such as gratuitous service, physical, emotional, and psychological dependency.

Considering the evidence presented, the court valued the deceased's earnings as a street hawker and her services towards household affairs. It determined the loss of dependency compensation by taking into account the modest estimate of her earnings and the value of her services. The court also made an addition for future prospects and deducted a portion for personal living expenses, applying an appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age.

Furthermore, the court awarded compensation under conventional heads, including loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. It held that each of the appellants-claimants, including the husband and the children of the deceased, is entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. The court enhanced the compensation for funeral expenses and loss of estate, bringing them in line with prevailing rates.

In the case of Kitabo, who claimed injuries sustained in the accident, the court considered the lower standard of proof required in a claim petition. It relied on the FIR, medical records, and receipts of expenses to establish the injuries. Although detailed medical evidence was lacking, the court recognized the trauma suffered by Kitabo and awarded her a lump sum compensation for her injuries.

Consequently, the High Court allowed both appeals and modified the previous award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellants were granted enhanced compensation based on loss of dependence, conventional heads, and injuries sustained. The court directed that the interest and other terms be as ordered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Decided on: 18.04.2023

Jagwa Ram and others vs Jogender and others 

 

Latest Legal News