Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J.
NAGAPPA MAHADEV DODDAAMANI, APPELLANT
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25092 of 1996), decided on August 29, 1997.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. one lakh for an injury which resulted in shortening of one leg of the victim by approximately two inches. The question of adequacy of the amount of Rs. one lakh as compensation does not arise for consideration since the claimant did not demand a higher amount. However, the insurer challenged the quantum and the High Court had reduced that amount from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 80,000 only. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. We are unable to uphold the High Courts judgment reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 80,000 for no cogent reasons. It is settled that in appeal interference is made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in this case the amount of Rs. one lakh could not be called too excessive nor was that the view taken by the High Court which merely reduced the amount to Rs. 80,000 without giving any supporting reasons to satisfy the legal requirement. The High Courts judgment is, therefore, set aside.
4. The appeal is allowed. The Tribunals award of Rs. one lakh as compensation together with interest @ 6 per cent is restored with costs throughout.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
