[ad_1]
CHENNAI:accidentA Supreme Court docket bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy has dismissed an enchantment filed by the Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm Restricted in opposition to an order of the Madras HC that enhanced the compensation paid to the household of an accident sufferer by 1,700% from 10.4 lakh to 1.85 crore primarily based on Kind-16, wage slip and different tax papers filed by the sufferer’s household.
On October 14, 2013, Subash Babu, a 35-year-old supervisor of a personal agency, was killed in an accident whereas driving a automobile from Perumanallur to Erode. His spouse and different members of the family who have been travelling with him escaped with accidents. His spouse, an eyewitness, informed Tiruppur motor accident claims tribunal {that a} van which was getting in entrance of their automobile turned proper with out exhibiting any sign and their automobile rammed in opposition to the van and her husband died within the influence.
The tribunal, nonetheless, mounted 75% contributory negligence on the sufferer primarily based on police FIR, which blamed Babu for negligent driving, and awarded Rs 10.4 lakh as compensation by fixing Babu’s month-to-month earnings at Rs 20,000 monthly.
Aggrieved by the order, the household moved the HC. In August 2018, Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of the Madras HC quashed the order of the tribunal and held that since there was no rebuttal witness offered by the insurance coverage firm, the accident occurred solely because of the negligence of the van driver. Considering the sufferer’s tax data and pay slip, the court docket mounted the sufferer’s annual earnings at 12.3 lakh and computed the compensation to be paid by the insurance coverage firm as 1.85 crore.
Agreeing with the HC ruling, the Supreme Court docket bench stated, “In view of such proof on report, there isn’t any purpose to present weightage to the contents of the FIR. If any proof earlier than the tribunal runs opposite to the contents within the FIR, the proof which is recorded earlier than the tribunal needs to be given weightage.”
On October 14, 2013, Subash Babu, a 35-year-old supervisor of a personal agency, was killed in an accident whereas driving a automobile from Perumanallur to Erode. His spouse and different members of the family who have been travelling with him escaped with accidents. His spouse, an eyewitness, informed Tiruppur motor accident claims tribunal {that a} van which was getting in entrance of their automobile turned proper with out exhibiting any sign and their automobile rammed in opposition to the van and her husband died within the influence.
The tribunal, nonetheless, mounted 75% contributory negligence on the sufferer primarily based on police FIR, which blamed Babu for negligent driving, and awarded Rs 10.4 lakh as compensation by fixing Babu’s month-to-month earnings at Rs 20,000 monthly.
Aggrieved by the order, the household moved the HC. In August 2018, Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of the Madras HC quashed the order of the tribunal and held that since there was no rebuttal witness offered by the insurance coverage firm, the accident occurred solely because of the negligence of the van driver. Considering the sufferer’s tax data and pay slip, the court docket mounted the sufferer’s annual earnings at 12.3 lakh and computed the compensation to be paid by the insurance coverage firm as 1.85 crore.
Agreeing with the HC ruling, the Supreme Court docket bench stated, “In view of such proof on report, there isn’t any purpose to present weightage to the contents of the FIR. If any proof earlier than the tribunal runs opposite to the contents within the FIR, the proof which is recorded earlier than the tribunal needs to be given weightage.”
[ad_2]
Source link
ADVERTISEMENT
