SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 34

SUHAS C.SEN, N.P.SINGH
K. Murugesh – Appellant
Versus
M. Palappa – Respondent


ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the parents of the deceased, who became victim in an accident on 4-1-1989. Then he was aged 18 years. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal recorded a finding in respect of the negligence of the driver because of which the death occurred, but only an amount of Rs 30,800 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was determined as the compensation payable to the appellants. On appeal being filed on behalf of the appellants, the High Court raised the amount of compensation by another Rs 5000, i.e., to an amount of Rs 35,800.

4. It has been rightly urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount determined as compensation payable to the appellants is inadequate. The victim was in the prime of his youth and had a lot of expectations from life. Merely because on that date he was not earning being a student, according to us, is not a relevant consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to the appellants.

5. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we direct Respondent 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs 1,00,000 along with in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top