Accident Case - High court enhanced the compensation for Rs.5,35,000/- failed to consider the Medical Bills and other settled laws - Apex court enhanced the compensation to Rs.16,58,600/- under 7 heads with 9% interest and further said though all are equal share - the parents were alloted each one lakh and whereas the rest of their share amount was ordered to be distributed equally to the minor children taking into consideration of their education etc., - 2015 SC MSKLAWREPORTS



whether  the  appellants  are   entitled   for
enhancement of compensation amount as prayed in these appeals?


  On 27.11.2006, Jhabbu Verman, aged 35 years, was  on  his  way  back  from
Tripuri to Garha (Jabalpur) on his motorcycle bearing registration  No.  MP-
20-Y-7669 and met with an accident when a truck bearing registration No. MP-
20-GA-2221 being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and  negligently  collided
with the back of his motorcycle. As a result  of  the  same,  Jhabbu  Verman
fell towards his right and the wheel of  the  vehicle  ran  over  his  hands
which lead to severe damage to his left hand.  Due to the grievous  injuries
caused in the said accident, he was immediately  taken  to  the  Mahakaushal
College  and  Hospital  and  he  remained  under  medical   treatment   from
28.11.2006, during which  period  he  underwent  an  operation  and  plastic
surgery twice on his chest and was advised for amputation of his left  hand.
However, due to the severity of injuries caused  to  him  in  the  accident,
Jhambu Verman died on 08.12.2006.

 The  High  Court  after  examining  the  facts,  circumstances  and
evidence  on  record  enhanced  the  amount  to  a  total  compensation   of
Rs.5,35,000/- under all heads with interest at the rate  of  8%  per  annum.
The following is the breakup of compensation under various heads awarded  by
the High Court:-
Loss of dependency - Rs. 4,50,000/-
Funeral Expenses   - Rs.    5,000/-
Loss of estate     - Rs.    5,000/-
Loss of consortium - Rs.    5,000/-
Loss of love       - Rs.   20,000/-
and affection

 Towards pecuniary  - Rs.   50,000/-
Loss
------------------------------------
TOTAL              - Rs. 5,35,000/-

  In the result, the appellant shall be  entitled  to  compensation  under
the following heads:
|1.       |Loss of dependency         |Rs.9,93,600/-            |
|2.       |Loss of estate             |Rs.1,00,000/-            |
|3.       |Loss of consortium         |Rs.1,00,000/-            |
|4.       |Loss of love and affection |Rs.2,00,000/-            |
|         |to children                |                         |
|5.       |Funeral expenses           |Rs.25,000/-              |
|6.       |Medical expenses           |Rs.1,40,000/-            |
|7.       |Loss of love and affection |Rs.1,00,000/-            |
|         |to parents                 |                         |
|         |TOTAL                      |Rs. 16,58,600/-          |

 Further, though all the appellants are legally entitled for equal  share  of
Rs.1,98,720/- (Rs.9,93,600/- divided by 5)  each  out  of  the  compensation
awarded towards loss of dependency, however, by keeping in mind the  age  of
the parents of the deceased and also the future educational requirements  of
the minor-children of the deceased, we are of the view that the  parents  of
the deceased shall be entitled to 1 lakh each out of the total  compensation
amount awarded towards loss of dependency and the remaining  part  of  their
share (i.e. Rs.98,720/- each) shall be equally  divided  and  added  to  the
appellant-minors' share of compensation.  
Therefore  the  following  is  the
apportionment of the amount  awarded  towards  loss  of  dependency  of  the
appellants with proportionate interest:
Appellant No.1 - Rs. 1,98,720/-
Appellant No.2 - Rs. 2,97,440/-
Appellant No.3 - Rs. 2,97,440/-
Appellant No.4 - Rs. 1,00,000/-
Appellant No.5 - Rs. 1,00,000/-
Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants  by  the  respondent-
Insurance Company will be Rs. 16,58,600/- with interest at the  rate  of  9%
p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the  date  of  payment.- 2015 SC.MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

ACT: Civil Procedure Code. 1908: Section 64 and Order 21 Rule 57Attachment order--Execution petition or suit in which attachment ordered dismissed--Restoration of such proceed- ings--Whether attachment revived--Alienation of attached property--Whether affected. -An order of restoration of a suit dismissed for default would certainly restore or revive the attachment for the period during which it was in subsistence, namely, prior to the dismissal of the suit or execution application. In the present case both transactions, sale by the judgment-debtor and subsequent sale by the purchaser to the respondents, were effected during the subsistence of the attachment and before the Title Execution Case was dismissed for default. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in taking the view that by reason of the dismissal of the said Title Execution Case, the attachment came to an end and the order of restoration of the said case would not affect any alienations made before the restoration, although such alienations might have been made during the subsistence of the attachment. -2015 S.C.(1987) msklawreports

The appellant filed a petition for execution of the money decree obtained by her in High Court against the judgment-debtor and attachment was levied in execution on open land and a portion of the premises in question belong- ing to the judgment-debtor. Subsequently, the judgment- debtor sold a portion of the attached property. The purchas- er in turn, sold a portion thereof to the respondents. The aforesaid execution petition was dismissed for default but later on an application by the appellant, the said Execution Case was restored, and the said property was again attached, and a proclamation for sale of the said property was issued under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents' petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of C.P.C. for releasing the property purchased by the respondents from attachment was dismissed. The High Court allowed the appeal. In appeal to this Court, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that in vi...
Read more