This is a compilation of Case Analysis of some important Judgments delivered in December 2022.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
While quashing the departmental proceedings against a retired inspector, Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the commencement of such proceedings is unsustainable if the misconduct was done four years before the date of issuance of the charge sheet.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Syed Jabir Ahamed vs Central Industrial Security Force consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that an order disqualifying the petitioner from future employment under the Govt. does not disqualify him from getting employment in private establishment.
The Bombay High Court comprising of Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja in the case of M/s. Samiksha Construction Versus Ambernath Municipal Council and Ors. expounds that it is not the function of the Court to sit in Appeal over Administrative decisions unless the decision is so outrageous.
The Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed that the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on the settlement between husband and wife.
ARBITRATION CASES
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S Thermal Engineers and Insulators Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. consisting of Justice Navin Chawla reiterated that in exercising its powers u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court while considering an application, can only prima facie evaluate the existence of the Arbitration Agreement; it cannot adjudicate the parties' claims and counterclaims in detail.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rama Civil India Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Union of India consisting of Justice Yashwant Varma reiterated that the venue restriction provision as contained in Section 42 of the Act would have no application to enforcement proceedings.
3. Delhi High Court rules: An order issued u/S. 11 cannot be reviewed by the High Court
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. Kush Raj Bhatia vs M/S DLF Power & Services Ltd. consisting of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna expounded that the High Court cannot review an order passed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which deals with the provision of appointment of arbitrators in an arbitration settlement.
The Bombay High Court observed that Section 26 of the Amendment Act of 2016 in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 made provisions of the Act applicable prospectively.
However, an option has been given to the parties for making amendments applicable to even pending arbitrations by using specific wording.
In the present case, the contract of the parties was worded in a way that means that the parties had an understanding that provisions of the Act as amended and modified were to apply to the arbitration proceedings.
CIVIL LAW
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition against the learned trial Court Order in which the direction was issued to the petitioners to file separate suits against all the defendants.
This Court held that in a case enforcing an agreement of sale for specific performance between petitioner and respondent, the remaining respondents are not a necessary party. Therefore, the trial Court has the power to order for filing of a separate suit.
2. Delhi High Court reiterates immoderate degree of proof is required to prove fraud
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Karishma Oberoi vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. consisting of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reiterates that parties must plead the precise nature of fraud and the manner of use or the unfair advantage that has been obtained.
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court opined that the approach differs when it comes to the amendments to the plaint. While considering amendments to the written statement, the general principle is to allow the application even if new grounds are added, substituted, or altered.
However, the same cannot be applied in the case of a plaint. A new cause of action is added, substituted, or altered in a plaint that is objectionable.
The bench opined that inconsistent pleas and subsequent events can be allowed by way of amendment, however when the total cause of action is being changed, the same cannot be permitted.
The Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in a Single Judge Bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Dhar expounds that amendments to a written statement can be allowed even if it amounts to the addition of new grounds of defence but adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint is certainly objectionable. (Abdul Aziz Bhat Vs. Mohammad Iqbal Bhat And Ors.)
The bench was hearing a plea wherein the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Munsiff court according to which the application filed by him seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed.
5. Supreme Court enunciates: Prayer Clause, a sine qua non for Decree of Refund of earnest money
The Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that the high Court ought not to have made any fact-based observations especially when the records of the concerned courts were not requisitioned to reach an independent conclusion to hold that the finding of fact by the two courts was contrary to the record.
The Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that it is an established principle of law that when there is a cloud over the title, a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable and it is imperative to file a suit for declaration.
The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the apex court in the case of D.N. Krishnappa Vs The deputy general manager held that merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the employee when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the finality.
The Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that while considering Order 33 Rule 5, CPC, the application for permission to sue as an indigent person has to be rejected and could not be allowed if the allegations in the plaint could not show any cause of action.
9. Delhi High Court Opines: The second appeal under letters patent would not be available
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Deepjot Singh Anand vs Union of India & Anr. consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that since the purpose of enacting Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was to curtail the number of appeals, a second appeal under letters patent filed any time after the 2002 Amendment inserting Section 100A would not be available.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while allowing the petitioners to file their written statement observed that the proviso of Order 8 Rule 1 in the case of non-commercial suits was directory in nature and not mandatory.
CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court Court held that encroachments have become a menace especially in this party of the country and all directions passed by this Court from time to time to maintain the order on the public road and Public Street have fallen on the deaf ears of the concerned authorities.
The Bench issued the certain important directions:
- Government of Union Territory of J&K, in general, and the petitioner-authority, in particular, shall ensure that no structure of any kind is allowed/permitted to be raised on public road, street, pathway, lane etc. which is part and parcel of the public property and belongs to the UT.
- If any encroachment is made on roads, pathways, streets or lanes in future, the Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police of that area shall be responsible for the same.
The division judge bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari of the apex court in the case of CISF and Others Vs Santosh Kumar Pandey held that the conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached a different conclusion.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Brijesh Gupta vs Smt. Saroj Gupta consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that once the principle of noscitur a sociis applies, the interpretation accorded by the judgment under review to the expression “unnecessary” would anyway be sustained, irrespective of whether the ejusdem generis principle would, or would not, apply.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lt. Col. SP Singh Retd. vs Union of India, Through Secretary & Ors. consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that in a writ petition, the question as to whether there was negligence, or not, cannot be gone into, inasmuch as the same would require ascertainment of various facts.
5. Delhi High Court Orders: The Accused has a right to get adequately and effectively medically treated
The Delhi High Court expounded that Article 21 covers a fundamental right to live with dignity and it includes the right to live a healthy life. The discretion to grant an interim bail must not be exercised when the person is breathing his last breath or is in a position where he might not survive. The Court granted interim bail looking at the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and further clarified that this case must not be treated as a precedent in another case.
6. Madras High Court opines: Investigations fall exclusively in the domain of Executive
The Madras High Court observed that the Courts only have to see whether the Enforcement Directorate (Respondent) is acting within the ambit and scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and not misusing the powers. If Court is satisfied that the investigation taken up by the Respondent is within their powers and there is no misuse, then the Court cannot act as a stumbling block in the further progress of the investigation by the Respondent.
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court opined that when a statutorily and equally efficacious remedy is available, then the writ petition should not be entertained. It was re-iterated that where a right or liability is created by a statute, and the statute provides for a speedy remedy for enforcing the same, that remedy alone should be availed. Even though an alternate remedy is not a bar to entertaining a writ petition, there are only a few circumstances such as the enforcement of the fundamental rights, violation of the principle of natural justice, or where the order under challenge is passed without jurisdiction is ultra vires, when such writ petition can be entertained.
The division judge bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.B. Padriwala of the apex court in the case of R. Nagender Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and Anr. held that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture.
But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in the substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as has happened in the case on hand, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
CRIMINAL LAW
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a single Judge bench consisting of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, while granting a regular bail in NDPS matters, observed that “once the criminal law was set into motion by the police itself then the police officials, especially in the NDPS matters, must depose before the Court but on a large number of times they did not depose even though they were served and repeated warrants were issued against them”.
The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana court held that it would not be open to the police to register a case against the offender for offence under Section 188 IPC and then to submit a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the concerned court. It was further held that it is abundantly clear that registration of FIR is nothing but is in complete violation of legal proposition as well as settled canons of law, especially, in the circumstances that admittedly, no complaint in writing by Public Servant concerned has been moved as is required under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. Thus, registration of FIR and commencement of proceedings qua petitioner is impermissible under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, it deserves to be quashed.
The Division Bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.B. Padriwala of the apex court in the case of The State of Gujarat Vs Sandip Omprakash Gupta held that there would have to be some act or omission which amounts to organized crime after the Maharashtra Control of Organised Act came into force, in respect of which the accused is sought to be tried for the first time, in the Special Court (i.e. has not been or is not being tried elsewhere).
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Agrawal Through Parokar vs Directorate of Enforcement consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that the discretion for granting interim bail on medical grounds may not be exercised only at a stage when the person is breathing last or is on the position that he may not survive.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Laxman Thakur vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) consisting of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable if the collection of the sample itself was faulty.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jolly Singh vs The State consisting of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that once the Magistrate passes an order directing the investigation, it is not open to the police to raise objections regarding territorial jurisdiction.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Siddharth Diwan vs Union of India & Ors. consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that once a person has surrendered to the Court custody, that is considered deemed arrest and he shall remain in the custody of the Court, till further orders.
8. Jammu & Kashmir High Court rules that District Magistrate cannot describe the period of detention
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court observed that Article 22 aims to save society from activities that are likely to deprive many people of their right to life and personal liberty as it leaves room for the detention of a person without any formal charge or trial. Article 22 leaves scope for the enactment of preventive detention laws. The interest of the larger public outweighs the liberty of an individual. The bench noted that the period of detention must be approved by the government and the same cannot be described by the District Magistrate while passing a detention order and accordingly sustained the detention order.
The Gujarat High Court recently comprising a bench of Justice Samir J. Dave has recently observed that a charge sheet filed without annexing the FSL report cannot be termed as defective or incomplete and thus, non-filing of the FSL report gives no indefeasible right to the accused to get default bail.
10. Jharkhand High Court opines: Consensual Sexual Relationship with a married woman, not Rape
The Jharkhand High Court recently comprising a bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi noted that a married woman could not be lured into providing consent for a sexual relationship with a man other than her husband based on a false promise, adding that the act cannot be considered rape.
11. Supreme Court rules: Common Intention can be formed at spur of moment and during occurrence itself
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia of the apex court in the case of The state of Rajasthan Vs Gurbachan Singh & Others held that Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact and as such, direct evidence normally will not be available
The Division Bench of Justice B.R.Gawai and Justice Vikram Nath of the apex court in the case of Ram Pratap Vs The State of Haryana held that the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
The Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the apex court in the case of Chandi Puliya Vs The state of West Bengal held that the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage prior to framing of the charge (under Section 228 Cr.P.C.) and it is at that stage alone that the court can consider the application under Section 300 Cr.P.C. Once the court rejects the discharge application, it would proceed to framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
14. Supreme Court pronounces: Summoning Order passed after conclusion of Trial not sustainable in law
The five-judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs The State of Punjab held that if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.
15. Supreme Court rules: Dying Declaration can be treated as a Former Statement
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S Oka of the apex court in the case of Ramcharan (Dead) & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh it was held that in view of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the so-called dying declaration can be treated as a former statement.
16. Calcutta High Court enunciates: Motive loses relevance if oral evidence is convincing and reliable
The Division Bench of Justice MD. Shabbar Rashidi and Justice Debangsu Basak of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jamat Sk Vs The State of West Bengal held that it is a well-settled principle of law that where oral evidence is convincing, reliable and trustworthy, the motive behind the occurrence loses its relevance.
The Uttarakhand High Court in, Lt. Colonel (Retd.) Balraj Singh Lamba and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another stated that an FIR that is lodged by concealing the fact that an application u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) has been rejected, cannot be allowed to continue. The court further stated by doing so, the informant made the order of the Magistrate redundant by deceitful means.
FAMILY LAW CASES
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Division Bench consisting of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao And Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, while giving custody of Stridhan articles of dowry meant for the use of the deceased held that the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, cannot be overlooked by invoking the provisions of Hindu Law relating to Succession.
2. Kerala High Court rules: Factors to be considered while deciding the amount of maintenance
The Kerala High Court opined that the quantum of maintenance should be such that the wife can live in reasonable comfort and as per the status and mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. The Court expounded those other factors such as professional qualifications, physical condition, etc. must also be considered while deciding the amount of maintenance. If at all, the Husband is not earning so much to provide the amount as granted by the Court, the husband shall undertake other jobs to earn sufficient income.
3. Kerala High Court Expounds: Section-125 CrPC gives implied power to grant Interim Maintenance
The Kerala High Court recently comprising a bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar reiterated that in the absence of any express bar or prohibition, Section 125 Cr.P.C. could be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication to make interim order of maintenance subject to the final outcome in the application.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently comprising a bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja has made it clear that in the matrimonial litigation, the dispute is primarily related to the human relationship, which ultimately not only affects the two families, but the society at large as well.
The Bench observed that in the matrimonial litigation, the dispute is primarily relating to the human relationship, which ultimately not only affects the two families but the society at large as well and thus, the standard of strict applicability of the procedure needs to be avoided and instead of adopting the hyper-technical approach, the courts are required to be more practical while dealing with such kind of litigation.
The Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession. To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which the right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan and held that the petitioner being a father of a child, should not shirk his responsibility in paying maintenance amount merely on the ground that his son attained majority.
He is bound to pay the maintenance amount to his son/2nd respondent, till completion of his graduation or at least completion of age of 21 years because the son was a minor when the maintenance claim was filed.
7. Calcutta High Court rules: Depriving the Petitioner of Stridhan Articles equals to Domestic violence
The single-judge bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mrs. Nandita Sarkar Vs Tilak Sarkar & Ors held that Domestic Violence includes economic abuse. The deprivation of the petitioner of any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law- is also Domestic Violence.
IBC Cases
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi has observed that for acknowledgement of debt in the eyes of law, documents such as entries in a Banker’s Book, recall notices and annual reports can be relied on.
It was further observed that Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 nowhere talks about the occurrence of default to be considered from the date of Non-Performing Assets. It was reiterated that the date of default for IBC has to be when there is actual non-repayment of debt repayable by the Corporate Debtor on the date it becomes due and payable
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, has opined that there is no scope for modifications or withdrawals of the CoC-approved resolution plans either by the Successful Resolution Applicant or by the Creditors.
The Bench further stated that “The interference by NCLT is only permitted if the plan goes against the IBC. Moreover, once the plan is submitted to the NCLT, the same becomes binding and irrevocable between Coc and the Successful Resolution Applicant”.
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi observed that Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contemplates continuance of proceedings based on devolution of rights with the leave of the Court.
The Bench further added that “There is no bar in either Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or any of the Regulations to prevent the continuation of the proceedings by an assignee. Section 5(7) of the IBC defines a financial creditor as a person to whom debt has been legally assigned or transferred".
4. NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi rules: Section 7 IBC Application against an NBFC not maintainable
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi noted that Section 3(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 explicitly states that financial service providers are not included in the definition of a corporate person. Further, to become a corporate debtor, an entity has to be a corporate person, but the financial service provider does not qualify as a corporate person.
5. NCLAT, Chennai Bench expounds: Adjudicating Authority has the power to remove the Liquidator
The NCLAT, Chennai Bench opined that per Regulation 7A of the IBBI Insolvency Regulation 2016 mandates that after 31.12.2019, no Insolvency Professional shall undertake any assignment without holding a valid ‘AFA’ as on the date of acceptance or commencement of the assignment. Regarding the removal of the Liquidator, it was noted that the IBC does not explicitly provide for grounds of removal of a Liquidator and since Adjudicating authority has the power to appoint a Liquidator, it can also remove/replace the Liquidator. It was opined that there is no such personal right with a Liquidator to continue in Liquidation.
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi observed that Section 8(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides that the dispute must be in respect of the claimed amount and must not be referable to any other kind of dispute. It was opined by the Tribunal that the plea of the pre-existing dispute must co-relate with the claimed amount by the Operational Creditor. In the present case, the Respondent did not contend that the Appellant is not entitled to salary, gratuity, bonus, etc., The Appellant asked for the salary that became due before the termination order was issued; therefore, there was no pre-existing dispute between the parties.
7. Calcutta High Court explains the Objective of Section 60(2) of IBC
The single judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Alliance Broadband services Private Limited Vs Manthan Broadband services Private Limited held that the object of section 60 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) is to group, the CIRP or liquidation proceedings of a Corporate Debtor, and the Insolvency Resolution or Liquidation or bankruptcy of a corporate guarantor or personal guarantor of a very same Corporate Debtor so that a single forum may deal with both.
The NCLT, Chandigarh Bench observed that the Taxation Department is not obliged to lodge a claim in respect of statutory dues. The claim must be treated as a debt owed to a secured creditor as security interest has been created by the operation of law.
The Department in respect of the claim created a charge on the Input Tax Credit of the Corporate Debtor. About this, the Tribunal noted that since the claims of the Excise and Taxation Department are already directed to be considered by the Liquidator, there is no need to attach the Input Tax Credit of the Corporate Debtor as this would affect the business of the Corporate Debtor and would be in the teeth of the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
9. NCLAT, Chennai Bench enunciates: No limitation of 'look back period' in Section 66 of IBC
The NCLAT, Chennai Bench noted that Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not provide for any ‘look back period’ as far as fraudulent transactions are concerned. Therefore, the Resolution Professional can retrieve/repossess without any limitation of time
The Bench further stated that, "Section 66 provides for the losses of the creditors to be recovered in the event of Liquidation and that the Directors causing such losses are liable to repay the losses.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shiv Kumar & Ors. consisting of Justice Rekha Palli held that once joint tortfeasors' liability is joint and several, claimants can seek full compensation from all or any joint tortfeasors.
The single judge bench of Justice Alka Sarin of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tagore Bal Niketan Senior Secondary School, Karnal Vs Gurnam Singh and Others held that it is trite that the outcome of criminal proceedings has no bearing on a case under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and that this must be demonstrated using the probabilities standard.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently comprising a bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed that compensation which is paid under the ‘No Fault Liability’ provision is adjustable in the compensation claim as provided under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for fault liability. (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Gulshan Kumar and Ors)
The Supreme Court comprising Division Bench Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat observed that “Just Compensation” should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident.
The Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s.
The division judge bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors held that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while awarding compensation to the family of the deceased, observed that the claimants would be entitled to the future prospects to an extent of 40% and the tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation for the loss of consortium to the widow, children and mother of the deceased.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the provident fund, pension, insurance, and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. were all a 'pecuniary advantage' receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these had no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount would not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as a 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction.
Picture Source :
