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

2015 Supreme(SC) 418

ANIL R.DAVE, MADAN B.LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH
Munna Lal Jain – Appellant
Versus
Vipin Kumar Sharma – Respondent


JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The never ending dispute on computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is the subject matter of this appeal as well.

3. In the absence of any statutory and a straight jacket formula, there are bound to be grey areas despite several attempts made by this Court to lay down the guidelines. Compensation would basically depend on the evidence available in a case and the formulas shown by the courts are only guidelines for the computation of the compensation. That precisely is the reason the courts lodge a caveat stating “ordinarily”, “normally”, “exceptional circumstances”, etc., while suggesting the formula.

4. In the case before us, the appellants are the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi in M.A.C.T. No. 736/2008. They are the parents of late Satendra Kumar Jain, aged 30 years, who died in a motor accident on 12.07.2008. He was self-employed as Pandit. He was a bachelor. Hence, the claim by the parents.

5. The appellants claimed an amount of R




















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