R. K. Malik vs Kiran Pal - 2009 Supreme(SC) 1113

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1113

S.B.SINHA, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
R. K. Malik – Appellant
Versus
Kiran Pal – Respondent

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellants:Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate, T. Harish Kumar, Yudhister Singh, Ashok Mathur (NP), Rohit Minocha, Advocates. For the Respondents:Ms. Pankaj Bala Verma (for Ms. Kiran Suri), P.R. Sikka, Dhiraj, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Mohd. Wasi (for P.N. Puri), Ravi Kumar Tomar (for Jitendra Kumar), Vipin Gogia (for Ms. Jaspreet Gogia), Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? How to determine just compensation for loss of life in motor vehicle accidents, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages? Question 2? What is the treatment of future prospects and loss of dependency for non-working/dependent claimants (e.g., children) under the Second Schedule and relevant case law? Question 3? What factors justify including conventional/non-pecuniary damages and how should interest on awards be calculated and awarded?

Question 1?

How to determine just compensation for loss of life in motor vehicle accidents, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages?

Question 2?

What is the treatment of future prospects and loss of dependency for non-working/dependent claimants (e.g., children) under the Second Schedule and relevant case law?

Question 3?

What factors justify including conventional/non-pecuniary damages and how should interest on awards be calculated and awarded?

Judgment :

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1.1. Leave granted.

.2. Challenge in these appeals is made to the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2006 rendered by a Single Judge of Delhi High Court in a bunch of motor accident claims petitions bearing MACT Nos. 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201202, 203-204, 207-208, 209-210, 213, 214, 215, 217, 221, 222, 228-229, 231-232, 233-

.234 and 742-743 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the High Court was pleased to dispose of the claim petitions of the appellants herein.

2.3. In order to decide these appeals, it would be necessary to state few basic facts. The appellants herein are claimants whose children were studying in school. On 18.11.1997 when these children were proceeding to the school in a bus bearing No. DL IP-1644, the bus after overrunning the road and breaking the railing got drowned in Yamuna river at Wazirabad Yamuna Bridge. Consequent to the accident, 29 children died.

3.4. The bus was being driven by Mr. Karan Pal (respondent No.1 herein) and was owned by Mr. Hari Kishan (respondent No.2) and was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 3). It was alleged that the driver was driving the bus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document