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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

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

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more