Ibrahim vs Raju & Ors on 31 October, 2011
In Ibrahim v. Raju (2011) 10 SCC 634, this Court took cognizance
of the plight of the victim of road accidents and observed:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
“The sufferings of the dependants of those who are killed in
motor accidents and the survivors who are disabled are manifold.
Sometime these can be measured in terms of money but most of the
times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is disabled
as a result of road accident, the cost of treatment, care and
rehabilitation is likely to be very high. A very large number of
people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children and
women and, on account of sheer ignorance, poverty and other
disabilities, majority of them are unable to engage competent
lawyers for putting their cause before the Tribunals and the
courts. The insurance companies, with whom the vehicles involved
in the accidents are insured always have the advantage of
assistance of legally trained mind (law officers and panel
lawyers). They contest the claim petitions by raising all
possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are
either completely absolved or their liability is minimised and in
the process, adjudication of the claims filed by the victims
and/or their legal representatives is delayed for years together.
At times, the delay in disposal of the claim cases and litigation
expenses make the award of compensation meaningless for survivors
of the accidents and/or families of the victims.”
The Court also referred to the judgments in Ward v. James (1965)
1 All ER 563 (CA), R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.
Nizam'S Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009
(1995) 1 SCC 551, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.
Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC
422, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC
254, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 and enhanced the
compensation from Rs.1,89,440/- to Rs.6 lakhs. The factual matrix of
that case and the factors considered by this Court for awarding
enhanced compensation to the appellant in that case are contained in
paragraphs 17 to 20 of the judgment, which are reproduced below:
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 23 July, 2009
(1995) 1 SCC 551, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.
Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC
422, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC
254, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 and enhanced the
compensation from Rs.1,89,440/- to Rs.6 lakhs. The factual matrix of
that case and the factors considered by this Court for awarding
enhanced compensation to the appellant in that case are contained in
paragraphs 17 to 20 of the judgment, which are reproduced below:
Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010
(1995) 1 SCC 551, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.
Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC
422, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC
254, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 and enhanced the
compensation from Rs.1,89,440/- to Rs.6 lakhs. The factual matrix of
that case and the factors considered by this Court for awarding
enhanced compensation to the appellant in that case are contained in
paragraphs 17 to 20 of the judgment, which are reproduced below:
Kavita vs Deepak And Ors on 22 August, 2012
“In the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned
cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of
compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled
either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made
to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury
and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to
lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been
enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The
amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are
distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain,
suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for
medical expenses.”
We may now revert to the case in hand. In his statement, the
appellant had vividly described the injuries suffered by him, the
treatment taken in Bhandari Hospital, Raichur and NIMS, Hyderabad as
also the expenses incurred for the treatment, loss of education and
income in the following words:
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1