Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.53 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010
15. After the insertion of section 163A in the Act (with effect from 14.11.1994), if a claim for compensation is made under that section by an injured alleging disability, and if the quantum of loss of future earning claimed, falls under the second schedule to the Act, the Tribunal may have to apply the following principles laid down in Note (5) of the Second Schedule to the Act to determine compensation :
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 ACJ 1 (SC), the Apex Court has broadly itemised compensation due and payable to an injured, who suffered disablement and at paragraphs 4 to 17, the Supreme Court held as follows:
The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995
K. Janardhan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 9 May, 2008
(iii) In Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar reported in 2012 (2) SCC 267, the Supreme Court held that reduction of the earning capacity, with reference to Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in the case of amputation above knee to a Cart-Puller, due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident, is erroneous and referring to the decisions made in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata reported in 1976 (1) SCC 289 and K.Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2008 (8) SCC 518, assessed the loss of earning capacity at 100% and enhanced the compensation. While adverting to the arguments of scaling down the compensation, at Paragraph 13, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Rekha Jain vs Natioanl Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors on 1 August, 2013
(iv). It is worthwhile to reproduce the decisions considered in Rekha Jain's case, for understanding the principles to be followed by the Courts/Tribunals in estimating the loss of earning capacity,
"In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to certain paragraphs which have been referred to by the High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy vs. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. [ILR 2004 Karnataka 2471], wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has considered the relevant important aspects from the judgment of this Court and the House of Lords and different learned scholars and authors of books on awarding pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The abovementioned decision states about the approach of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals and Courts for awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimants in relation to the bodily injuries suffered by them.
Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd vs Ahmed Thambi on 3 August, 2006
11. Though the learned counsel for the transport corporation has contended that the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- as disability compensation, by awarding Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability and prayed for reduction, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contentions for the reasons that the injuries sustained, has not only affected the functions of the limb, but has also caused disfiguration. It is the evidence of PW2, Doctor, that during his clinical examination the respondent felt pain while he was standing. Thus, it is evident that the injuries and the consequential disablement has also resulted in loss of amenities, which the Full Bench of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonnam vs. Ahmed Thambi and others reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433, explained as follows
"14. Loss of amenities : The next head of non-pecuniary loss is 'loss of amenities'. Besides damages for the pain and suffering sustained by a plaintiff by reason of his injuries, damages may be awarded for the losses sustained by him. Loss of amenities covers deprivation of the ordinary experiences and enjoyment of life and includes loss of the ability to walk or see, loss of a limb or its use, loss of congenial employment, loss of pride and pleasure in one's work, loss of marriage prospects and loss of sexual function. In India loss of marriage prospects and loss of enjoyment of life are awarded separately. Damages under this head are awarded whether the plaintiff is aware of the loss or not. They are awarded for the fact of the deprivation, rather than for the awareness of it."