October 10, 2024 3:26 pm

Accident – Standard of proof – Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident.

Bysclaw

Jul 20, 2023

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Motor Accident Claims — Accurate Disability assessment — Supreme Court addressed the issue of compensation for a motor accident victim who sustained injuries to both hands requiring surgery and resulting in permanent disability — The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) initially awarded Rs.5,38,872/- as compensation, considering a 25% disability — The insurance company appealed, and the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.4,74,072/-, adjusting the disability percentage to 20% — The Supreme Court upon reviewing the medical records and testimony of doctor, who certified a 50% disability, set aside the High Court’s judgment — It restored the Tribunal’s decision, which had assessed a 25% disability — The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the full compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal — The appeal was thus allowed, emphasizing the importance of accurate disability assessment in determining fair compensation for accident victims.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

Motor Accident Claims — Enhancement of Compensation — The claimant-appellant’s husband died in a motor accident involving an ambulance and a truck — The deceased was employed as a ‘Khalasi’ in the ambulance — The maintainability of the claim for compensation, the rash and negligent conduct of the truck driver, and the extent of compensation payable — The High Court awarded Rs. 8,30,000 as compensation, deducting Rs. 6,25,000 already paid by the employer — The Supreme Court modified the compensation to Rs. 10,06,900 with 7.5% interest — The appeal was allowed, and the compensation amount was modified.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

Motor Accident Compensation — Contributory Negligence — The claimant and his wife were involved in a motorcycle accident with two tractors, resulting in the wife’s death and the claimant’s severe injuries — The main issues were rash and negligent driving, contributory negligence and insurance liability — The claimant argued for higher compensation due to the loss of income from their business and the misapplication of the multiplier by the Tribunal — The respondents contended that the claimant was also negligent and thus partly responsible for the accident — The Supreme Court revised the compensation to Rs. 11,25,000 from Rs. 1,01,250, acknowledging the error in the Tribunal’s application of the multiplier and contributory negligence — The Court found that the claimant’s act of overtaking was not rash or negligent and that the offending vehicle was driven negligently — The appeal was allowed, and the compensation was significantly increased, with the interest rate adjusted to 8%.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw

The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw

Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw

Tenders & Contracts

Coal Mining Bid — Rejection of — Eligibility criteria — Appellants challenged the rejection of its technical bid by Respondent-BCCL for a coal mining project, while the bid of Respondent No. 8 was accepted despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements —Whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the appellant’s bid and accepting the bid of Respondent No. 8, which did not meet the eligibility criteria — Appellant argues that the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory — The appellant complied with all requirements, while Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit missing documents later — BCCL argues that the appellant’s bid was non-compliant due to issues with the Power of Attorney — The Tender Committee could seek shortfall documents but not replace them —The Supreme Court found BCCL’s actions arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant’s bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid — The appellant’s Power of Attorney was valid and notarized before submission — BCCL’s acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid despite non-compliance was unjustified —Government bodies must act fairly and transparently in awarding contracts — The decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias —The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside BCCL’s decision and any subsequent agreements, and directed BCCL to initiate a fresh tender process.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw