SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 166 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Lalan D. @ Lal & Anr Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, (2020) 09 SC CK 0030

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that in the case of a finding that the victim is virtually lying as vegetable, the degree of disability is to be reckoned as 100% (i.e. permanent disability) for award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The assessment of the monthly income of the victim is essentially a finding of question of fact to be looked into by the Tribunal / High Court which do not require to be disturbed by the Apex Court. The compensation is also to be awarded under the head of ‘loss of future prospects’ and in view of the 100% disability, 40% of the income of the victim can be considered as loss of future earnings.  This will be in addition to compensation to be awarded for permanent disability. The compensation under the heads ‘pain and suffering’ and towards ‘loss of amenities and enjoyment in life’ are also to be calculated inconsonance with the degree of disability. ‘Medical Attendant Charges’ (bystander expenses) and ‘Future Treatment Cost’ in the case of permanent disability are to be calculated keeping into view that the victim require caregiver round the clock and round the year so as to remain barely functional which may be awarded as lump sum compensation judging by the stratum of the society he comes from.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON DIRECTING A FRESH/ DE NOVO INVESTIGATION EVEN AFTER INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND POLICE REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 173(2) OF THE CR. P.C. THOUGH UNDER SECTION 173 (8) OF CR.P.C. ONLY A FURTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE ORDERED.

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Neetu Kumar Nagaich Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Others, (2020) 09 SC CK 0026 A Full Bench of the Supreme Court while setting aside the Closure Report filed by the Police directed a de novo investigation by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a senior police officer of the State consisting of efficient personnel well conversant with use of modern investigation technology also. No officer who was part of the investigating team leading to the closure report shall be part of the team conducting de novo investigation. The Supreme Court was of the view that normally when an investigation has been concluded and...
Read more

SUPREME COURT FULL BENCH JUDGMENT ON A REFERENCE ARISING OUT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO DIVISION BENCH DECISIONS IN JOGINDER TULI VS. S.L. BHATIA, (1996) 10 SC CK 0017 AND OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VS. MODERN CONSTRUCTION & CO., (2013) 10 SC CK 0043 WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF LAW IF A PLAINT IS RETURNED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 AND 10A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, FOR PRESENTATION IN THE COURT IN WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED, WHETHER THE SUIT SHALL PROCEED DE NOVO OR WILL IT CONTINUE FROM THE STAGE WHERE IT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT THE TIME OF RETURNING OF THE PLAINT.

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com M/S. Exl Careers And Another Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited, (2020) 08 SC CK 0001 A Full Bench of the Supreme Court on a reference by a two Judge Bench opining a perceived conflict between two Division Bench decisions in Joginder Tuli vs. S.L. Bhatia,  (1996) 10 SC CK 0017  and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation   Ltd. vs. Modern Construction & Co.,  (2013) 10 SC CK 0043  with regard to question of law if a plaint is   returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, ...
Read more

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON SECTION 142(2)(a) OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com M/S Himalaya Self Farming Group & Anr Vs. M/S Goyal Feed Suppliers, (2020) 09 SC CK 0037 A Single Bench of the Supreme Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account.
Read more