Supreme Court said- Fixing compensation in accident cases is a ‘difficult task’

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that there is no justification in excluding the possibility of compensation to the person keeping in view his future in accident cases resulting in permanent disablement resulting in grievous injuries. .

The apex court said that the process of determination of compensation by the court is essentially ‘‘very onerous task’’ is and can never be an exact science. The court observed that full compensation is hardly possible especially in claims for injury and disability.

Increased compensation…

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala in July 2012 enhanced the compensation awarded to a man who suffered permanent disability up to 45 per cent due to a road accident in Karnataka to Rs 21,78,600.

< p style ="text-align: justify;">The bench said in its 71-page judgment, ‘‘We have perused several orders of various tribunals and unfortunately upheld the same by various High Courts, noting that the claimant has suffered local disability as a result of grievous injuries. Not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases. This is not the correct position of law.’’

In case of death of the victim…

The bench said, ‘‘Such a narrow interpretation is illogical as it completely negates the possibility of the survivor moving forward in the life of the victim in accident cases – and the future prospects in case of death of the victim. accepts such a possibility.’’

The apex court delivered the verdict on an appeal filed by a person named Siddram against the April 2018 verdict of the Karnataka High Court, which had increased the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Belgaum from Rs 3,13,800 to Rs 9,26,800.< /p>

The bench noted that the tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs 6,13,000 along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of receipt of the payment. Challenging the judgment of the High Court, the appellant prayed for further enhancement of the compensation in the matter.

No justification for excluding the possibility of compensation…

The bench said that the evidence on record indicates that the accident caused the appellant to suffer paralysis in the lower part of the body. The court also noted that the appellant was 19 years old at the time of the accident.

The bench, referring to an earlier judgment of the apex court, said that it is of the view that it is not necessary to produce any documentary evidence to prove the fictitious income of the victim and the court can do so even in their absence. The bench said that pain and suffering would be classified as non-economic loss as it is incapable of being calculated arithmetically.

Read also.

G20 Summit: The colors of Himachal-Gujarat were seen in the G-20 summit, PM Modi gave special gifts to the national presidents

Leave a Comment