Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 68 (0.56 seconds)Ibrahim vs Raju & Ors on 31 October, 2011
84. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court referred to
supra, wherein this Court has awarded ‘just compensation’ more than
what was claimed by the claimants initially and therefore, the
contention urged by learned senior counsel and other counsel on behalf
of the appellant-doctors and the AMRI Hospital that the additional
claim made by the claimant was rightly not considered by the National
Commission for the reason that the same is not supported by pleadings
by filing an application to amend the same regarding the quantum of
compensation and the same could not have been amended as it is barred
by the limitation provided under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 and the claimant is also not entitled to seek enhanced
compensation in view of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC as he had
restricted his claim at Rs.77,07,45,000/-, is not sustainable in law.
The claimant has appropriately placed reliance upon the decisions of
this Court in justification of his additional claim and the finding of
fact on the basis of which the National Commission rejected the claim
is based on untenable reasons. We have to reject the contention urged
by the learned senior counsel and other counsel on behalf of the
appellant-doctors and the AMRI Hospital as it is wholly untenable in
law and is contrary to the aforesaid decisions of this Court referred
to supra. We have to accept the claim of the claimant as it is
supported by the decisions of this Court and the same is well founded
in law. It is the duty of the Tribunals, Commissions and the Courts to
consider relevant facts and evidence in respect of facts and
circumstances of each and every case for awarding just and reasonable
compensation. Therefore, we are of the view that the claimant is
entitled for enhanced compensation under certain items made by the
claimant in additional claim preferred by him before the National
Commission. We have to keep in view the fact that this Court while
remanding the case back to the National Commission only for the
purpose of determination of quantum of compensation also made
categorical observation that:
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan this Court reiterated that
the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also
identified the factors which should be kept in mind while
determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of
the judgment are extracted below: (SCC pp. 431-32 & 440-41,
paras 26-27 & 46-47)
‘26. The compensation which is required to be determined must be
just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the
loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to
be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This
Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as
for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be
compensated in monetary terms.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Jashuben & Ors on 14 February, 2008
86. The claimant further placed reliance upon the decisions of this
Court in Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra), Sri
Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance (supra),
Ibrahim Vs. Raju & Ors., Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Kavita Vs. Dipak &
Ors (supra) in support of his additional claim on loss of future
prospect of income. However, these decisions do not have any relevance
to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, these
cases mention about ‘future loss of income’ and not ‘future prospects
of income’ in terms of the potential of the victim and we are inclined
to distinguish between the two.
Indian Medical Association vs V.P. Shantha & Ors on 13 November, 1995
The claimant has rightly placed reliance
upon the cases of this Court such as, Indian Medical Assn. Vs. V.P.
Shanta & Ors.(supra), Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. Vs. Harjol
Ahluwalia[33], Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and
Ors.(supra), J.J. Merchants & Ors. Vs. Srinath Chaturbedi (supra),
Savita Garg Vs. Director National Heart Institute (supra), State of
Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram & Ors.(supra), Samira Kholi Vs. Dr. Prabha
Manchanda & Anr.(supra), P.G. Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Jaspal
Singh & Ors., (supra) Nizam Institute Vs. Prasant Dhananka (supra)
Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. (supra) and V. Kishan
Rao Vs. Nikhil Superspeciality Hospital & Anr. (supra) to contend that
not a single case was decided by using the multiplier method.
Smt. Savita Garg vs The Director, National Heart Institute on 12 October, 2004
62. Appellant-doctors Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr. Baidyanath Haldar
have attempted to claim in their respective appeals that they
cannot be penalized with compensation because they did not charge
any fee for treatment of the deceased. Such a claim has no legal
basis as in view of the categorical observations made by this
Court in Savita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart Institute[25]
and in Malay Kumar Ganguly’s case (supra) wherein this Court has
categorically stated that the aforesaid principle in Savita Garg’s
case applies to the present case also insofar as it answers the
contentions raised before us that the three senior doctors did not
charge any professional fees.
Govind Yadav vs The New India Insurance Co.Ltd on 1 November, 2011
86. The claimant further placed reliance upon the decisions of this
Court in Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra), Sri
Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance (supra),
Ibrahim Vs. Raju & Ors., Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Kavita Vs. Dipak &
Ors (supra) in support of his additional claim on loss of future
prospect of income. However, these decisions do not have any relevance
to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, these
cases mention about ‘future loss of income’ and not ‘future prospects
of income’ in terms of the potential of the victim and we are inclined
to distinguish between the two.