Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Harpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs Mohinder Yadav & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No(S). 9233 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/12/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Harpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs Mohinder Yadav & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

Conclusion: The Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act on basis of filial and parental consortium.

Facts: In present matter, the appellants are aggrieved by the final judgment1 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which partly allowed their first appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the petitioners from ₹ 6,60,000 (with 6% interest) to ₹ 17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). The appellants’ grievance is that the High Court erred in computation of compensation for loss of income, and failed to award any amount under the head of “loss of love and affection”, while computing the final compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here after, “MV Act”).

On 29.09.2004, the deceased, late Jagjit Singh was returning from Chandigarh in a car with two other passengers, when a negligently driven truck collided with their car. Grievously injured, he was transferred to the hospital for medical attention, but succumbed to his injuries. The claimant-petitioners instituted a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereafter, “MACT”) under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 23.02.2005.

The MACT concluded that Jagjit Singh had died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving, and partly allowed the claim with a lump sum award of ₹6,60,000. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the High Court in 2007. The High Court by the impugned judgment, partly allowed the first appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). While all three respondents (driver, owner of truck and insurer) were held to be joint and severally liable, since the truck was duly insured by the third respondent, the latter was held liable to pay the entire assessed compensation.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031