Tribunal Order - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims

In a significant ruling on motor accident claims, the Supreme Court reinforced the principles from Pranay Sethi and Somwati. The Court established that the income of a deceased, even if not fully substantiated, cannot be assessed lower than the notional income of an unskilled labourer, with due consideration for annual increments. It upheld the application of standard multipliers, future prospects, and clarified that loss of consortium is payable to spouses, children, and dependent parents. Facts Of The Case: In a tragic accident on July 25, 2010, four friends from Bijapur on a pilgrimage to Shirdi lost their lives when their car was involved in a head-on collision with a rashly and negligently driven goods lorry on NH-13. The case concerns one of the deceased, a qualified pharmacist, wh...

Supreme Court Says No :Can You Change Your Mind After Cashing the Cheque?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of a time-barred review petition. It affirmed the legal principle that a party cannot "approbate and reprobate"—they cannot accept a benefit under an order and later challenge it. A party who voluntarily accepts compensation with full knowledge is bound by their conduct and cannot subsequently resile from it. Facts Of The Case: In a motor accident claim case concerning the death of Priyank Chand, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of approximately Rs. 11.82 lakh to his legal heirs: his mother (Urmila Chand, the appellant), his wife (Sonu Chand), and his two minor children. Upon a joint application filed by all claimants, including Urmila, the Tribunal passed a disbursement order on 21.04.2015. As...

Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act

The Supreme Court of India held that demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, can be raised by railway authorities even after delivery of goods. The Court clarified that Section 66 does not specify a stage for imposing such charges , distinguishing it from Sections 73 and 78, which relate to punitive charges for overloading and require recovery before delivery. The Court also stated that the High Court's reliance on Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. was erroneous as that case pertained to overloading and Section 54, not misdeclaration under Section 66. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others, stemming from a judgment ...