M.V.Act - accident claim - Enhancement - only surviving legal representative- adopted child of the deceased - filed a claim petition - The Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition - on the ground that she could not prove to be a legal representative of the deceased. - The High Court allowed the appeal and awarded an amount of Rs.6,30,000/-appeal for enhancement of compensation - we are of the view of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.- addition of 30% to the income towards future prospects as per the principles of Sarla Verma - the monthly income for the calculation of future loss of dependency would be Rs.7,800/- (Rs.6,000/- + 30% of Rs.6,000/-). Therefore, the annual income comes to Rs.93,600/- deduction of 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles of Sarla Verma (supra), the future loss of dependency suffered by the appellant is calculated at Rs.8,73,600/- [(Rs.93,600/- (-) 1/3rd of Rs.93,600/-) X 14].- for loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection as per the case of Juju Kuruvila & Ors. - an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate as per the decision of this Court in the case of Kalpanaraj & Ors - Further, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. - an interest at the rate 9% per annum on the compensation amount as per the principles laid by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi - 2015 S.C. msklawreports




mother  of  the  appellant,  who  along  with  five  other  passengers  were
travelling in a Maruti Car bearing registration No. PBW-8399,  met  with  an
accident near Oasis Tourist Complex on  G.  T.  Road  near  Uchana  village,
Police Station Sadar Karnal, when a truck bearing registration No.  PIB-5733
being driven rashly and negligently by respondent  no.  2  coming  from  the
opposite direction collided with the said car. Parmod Bala succumbed to  the
injuries caused to her due to the accident on the same day

The appellant being the only surviving legal representative, who was  the
adopted child of the deceased, filed a claim petition

 The  Tribunal  by  its  award  dated
11.11.1991 dismissed the said claim petition filed by the appellant  on  the
ground that she could  not  prove  to  be  a  legal  representative  of  the
deceased.
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set  aside  the
award of the  Tribunal  and  awarded  an  amount  of  Rs.6,30,000/-  to  the
appellant
 for
the last 25 years, the appellant has  been  suffering  from  mental  trauma,
loss of love and affection of her deceased mother  and  virtually  lost  the
higher education and initial career building period of her life.

we are of the view that it would be just  and
proper to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-  per  month.

Further, on addition of 30% to the income of  the  deceased  towards  future
prospects as per the principles laid down by  this  Court  in  the  case  of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi  Transport  Corporation  and  Another[1],  
the  monthly
income for the calculation of future loss of  dependency  of  the  appellant
would be Rs.7,800/- (Rs.6,000/- + 30% of Rs.6,000/-). 
Therefore, the  annual income comes to Rs.93,600/-. 
On deduction of  1/3rd  of  the  annual  income
towards personal expenses and applying the  appropriate  multiplier  as  per
the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla  Verma  (supra),
the future loss of dependency suffered by the  appellant  is  calculated  at
Rs.8,73,600/- [(Rs.93,600/-       (-) 1/3rd of Rs.93,600/-) X 14].

Further, the High Court has certainly erred in awarding a meagre  amount  of
only Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, loss of love and affection and  funeral
expenses. 
Therefore,  we  award  Rs.1,00,000/-  towards  loss  of  love  and
affection as per the decision of this Court in the case of Juju  Kuruvila  &
Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.[2]. 

We also award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
 towards loss of estate as per the decision of this Court  in  the  case  of
Kalpanaraj & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation[3].  
Further,  a
sum  of  Rs.25,000/-  is  awarded  towards  funeral  expenses  as  per   the
principles laid down by this Court in the case of Rajesh &  Ors.  v.  Rajbir
Singh & Ors.[4]
The High Court has further erred in awarding an interest at the rate  of  6%
per annum only, instead of 9% per annum on the compensation  amount  as  per
the principles laid by this Court in the case of  Municipal  Corporation  of
Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy[5]. We  accordingly  award
an interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount. - 2015 S.C. 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

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

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)