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

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS