Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Fakeerappa And Anr vs Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory And Ors on 13 February, 2004
Reliance may be made to the cases National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory . The effect of interest is from the date of filing of the claim petition, which is also settled now. In the instant case, the claim petition was filed on 5.10.1999. In that view of the matter, having regard to that statutory provision, this court is of the view that the simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum should be added along with the compensation amount with effect from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. It has been submitted before this court that the amount in terms of the impugned judgment under appeal has already been paid, which surely to be deducted from the total amount in terms of our findings and directions to that effect.
Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002
4. In the original claim application the claimants, however, prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000. Before us an amendment application has been filed being C.A.N. No. 4795 of 2006 which has been heard along with the main matter today. In that application claimants have prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,80,000. Whatever the compensation amount prayed for, award of compensation depends upon consideration of statutory provision under the said Act, namely, Section 168, which provides that 'just' compensation should be allowed by the court. The word 'just' as appearing in the said provision came up for adjudication before Supreme Court when the court held that considering said provision the appeal court has the power and jurisdiction not only to allow the amendment application praying for enhancement of the claim but also to allow the appropriate amount following Section 168 of the said Act. Reliance may be placed to the case Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh . In the instant case, having regard to the structured formula, as this court has come to a finding that the just compensation should be Rs. 6,48,000 and accordingly leave granted to the claimants-appellants to amend the amendment application so far as the quantum of the compensation amount is concerned to that effect here and now. The amendment application is accordingly allowed by modifying the original claim to the extent of Rs. 6,48,000 as has been awarded today.
Union Carbide Corporation Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1991
9. It is needless to say that long back the court considered the evil aspect of the matter about the deprivation of the claimants to enjoy the awarded amount and had accordingly observed in the case (Sic.) that all the Tribunals and the Hon'ble courts should follow the views of the Supreme Court as reported in Union Carbide case AIR 1992 SC 248, so far as the deposit of the money in the fixed deposit scheme and enjoyment of the interest by the claimants for proper utilization of the money. Unfortunately, such views of the Supreme Court and the observations thereof have not been percolated to the different courts or the Tribunals in their proper angle. Accordingly, this court sitting in the appeal court is directing the High Court Registry to circulate the copy of this judgment to all the learned Tribunals under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature, Calcutta so that the compensation amount is properly utilized in terms of the judgment, namely, directing necessary steps for depositing the amount in the fixed deposit scheme, payment of interest month by month to the claimants, restriction to withdraw the money at a time and not to cancel the fixed deposit scheme in the midway save and except to meet the huge medical expenditure, educational expenses or marriage expenses, etc. The Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta is directed to take steps in the matter.
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
3. Considering that the income of the deceased for awarding compensation is being fixed at Rs. 4,500 per month the claim application was under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Having regard to the judgment of Apex Court by holding that even in the application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the structured formula to identify the compensation could be applied in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act passed in case Abanti Bejbaruah v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2003 (2) WBLR 335, as well as the judgment passed in the case Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , this court accordingly is applying the structured formula in terms of Section 163-A to identify the amount of compensation. Since income is Rs. 4,500, on multiplication by 12 the per annum income would be Rs. 54,000. The 1/3rd of the said income as per the note as appears in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A since requires to be excluded, total amount could be considered for family expenses as Rs. 36,000. This amount is required to be multiplied by the concerned multiplier in terms of the said Second Schedule on the basis of the age of the victim. The age determined by the learned Tribunal was of 30 years. Hence, as per the structured formula the multiplier would be 18. The compensation money as such would reach to the figure Rs. 3,600 x 18 = Rs. 6,48,000. There is no doubt that Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 so far as awarding of compensation amount, is within the domain of social justice concept having its root in the constitutional provision under Directive Principles of State Policy to provide protection of the deceased family who has suffered from financial stringency due to the motor accident. The provision is a social welfare provision. As such, grant of interest on the awarded amount also has been specified in terms of Section 171 of the said Act. Since in the statutory provision there is a provision of interest, this court cannot be unmindful about applicability of the said provision even if there is no doubt that the imposition of interest is within the domain of the discretionary power of court due to prescription of word 'may'. But having regard to the impact of the statutory provision, this court is of the view that interest in the instant case is required to be allowed on the amount of compensation. The incident happened in the year 1991 when at the material time the interest under a fixed deposit scheme of a nationalised bank in terms of the regulation of Reserve Bank of India was fixed as 12 per cent per annum.