Justice S.V.N. Bhatti - The Legal Chamber

Can a Court Award More Than You Claimed? Supreme Court Upholds ‘Just Compensation’ in Accident Cases

3Mar

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can a Court Award More Than You Claimed? Supreme Court Upholds ‘Just Compensation’ in Accident Cases

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that tribunals can award compensation exceeding the claimed amount under the Motor Vehicles Act to ensure just and fair relief. It emphasized adding future prospects to monthly income for calculating loss of earnings due to functional disability. The Court also granted a lump sum for attendant care based on the claimant's age and injuries. Facts Of The Case: On 26.01.2012, the appellant, R. Logeshkumar, aged 21, was riding a motorcycle from Selaiyur to Medavakkam in Chennai. At the Kamarajapuram junction, a jeep owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, without sounding a horn, and collided with his motorcycle. The accident caused grievous injuri...

Wrong Rules, Right Candidate: Supreme Court Reinstates Teacher, Secures Job for Rival Too

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the statutory rules applicable at the time of an advertisement govern the selection process. The Supreme Court held that applying a different set of service rules, which were not referenced in the advertisement, to invalidate a duly made appointment to an aided educational institution is illegal. The Court emphasized that the legality of an appointment must be tested against the rules that initiated the selection. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2006 advertisement issued by an aided college to fill a Lecturer post in History, governed by the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001, which prescribed no age limit. The appellant, Jyotsna Devi, was selected as the most meritorious candidate. Although she was overag...

Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory

The Supreme Court held that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a defendant cannot file a defence without first obtaining "leave to defend" from the court. Permitting a reply to a summons for judgment bypasses this mandatory procedure, which effaces the fundamental distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary suit. The Court set aside the impugned order for this procedural deviation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a commercial summary suit filed by the appellant, Executive Trading Company, to recover a sum of over Rs. 2.38 crore from the respondent, Grow Well Mercantile. The suit was instituted under the special fast-track procedure of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). After the defendant entered appearance, the plaintiff served a "summons for judgm...