Category Archives: Blog

Enactment of Motor Vehicles Act is welfare legislation with an objective to give financial aid to the victims of motor vehicular accidents and also to the dependants of the deceased persons. This legislation aids such victims or their dependants to lead a respectable life. Thus, the interpretation of various sections of Motor Vehicles Act shall be towards the fulfilment of these objectives and not to block the compensation on non-sustainable grounds as held by the Hon’ble High Court in the case through Justice Tashi Rabstan in the case of Adarsh Gupta and others Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others.

Factual matrix of the case goes as that a young man, Dr. Abhinav Gupta Final Year MBBS student, lost his life in a tragic road accident in the prime of his youth when he was travelling in a vehicle which was being driven by respondent No. 2 herein in a rash and negligent manner. The driver lost control over the vehicle after which the vehicle collided with a Eucalyptus tree, as a result thereof deceased died on spot. Claimants filed a claim petition before the learned MACT, Rajouri for claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased. Being not satisfied with the awarded amount, claimants have filed this MA No.413/12 for enhancement of the award

The counsel for the appellants has mainly submitted this appeal on the grounds that the learned Tribunal has failed in its duty to award just and reasonable compensation and the act of the learned Tribunal in assessing income of the deceased at Rs.10000/- per month is too low and disproportionate to the qualification and keeping in view the profession of the deceased. Whereas, Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is appropriate and in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, thus, needs no interference from this Court.

The Hon’ble court, after hearing both the parties, were of the opinion that appellants have force in their arguments that the learned Tribunal did not take the prospective income of the deceased in its right perspective, thus has failed in awarding just and fair compensation. The Tribunal was required to consider the career prospects of the deceased and the likely earning of deceased in future. The Hon’ble court relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Krishna Murthi versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi versus Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma while answering the question arised that what can be the appropriate income of the deceased to be taken for assessing just and fair compensation.

After a perusal of the observation made by the Apex court in the aforementioned judgments, the court concluded that the Learned Tribunal fell in error while calculating the multiplier while taking the age of mother/dependant into account instead of the deceased and stated that “The income of the deceased is accepted as Rs.25,000/- per month. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,00,000/- and after deducting the aggregate income tax approximately at the rate of Rs.5000/- per annum taking different slabs for different financial years, the net annual income comes to Rs.2,95,000/”

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

In the kind of cases where the interest will have to be balanced and the test of eminent need is not satisfied for undergoing a DNA Test, the protection of the right to privacy of the Person should get precedence as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the learned bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta and Others [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6153 OF 2021] (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11663 of 2019).

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Ashok Kumar filed CS No. 53/2013 seeking declaration of ownership of property, left behind by late Trilok Chand Gupta and late Sona Devi. He arrayed the couple’s three daughters as defendants in the Suit and claimed himself to be the son of Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi. In their written statement, the defendants denied that the plaintiff is the son of their parents (Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi), and as such he is disentitled from any share in their parental property.

In course of the proceedings before the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kalka, the defendants filed an application on 19.4.2017 seeking direction from the Court to conduct a Deoxyribonucleic Acid Test (for short “DNA test”) of the plaintiff and either of the defendants, to establish a biological link of the plaintiff to the defendants’ parents i.e., late Trilok Chand Gupta and Smt. Sona Devi.

The defendants’ application for conducting the DNA test for the plaintiff was disposed of by the Court by referring to the fact that the CS No. 53/2013 is for declaration of ownership of property left behind by late Trilok Chand Gupta and late Sona Devi. The learned Judge noted that the evidence was already led by the plaintiff to prove his case and the application of the defendants was filed at that stage of the Suit when it was their turn to lay their evidence. Since the plaintiff had refused to give the DNA sample, the view taken was that the Court cannot force the plaintiff to provide DNA sample and accordingly the defendants’ application came to be dismissed by the order dated 28.11.2017 by the learned Trial Judge.

The defendants moved the High Court by filing a Revision Petition against the order dated 28.11.2017. The parties were heard and the learned judge upon due consideration observed that a DNA test is a double -edged weapon and is a vital test to determine the relation of a party and the plaintiff who is claiming to be the son of late Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi, should not shy away from the DNA test suggested by the defendants. Taking exception to the revisional order of the High Court, the aggrieved plaintiff is before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Court, after considering the cases of Banarsi Dass V. Teeku Dutta, Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram and Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women &Anr., held that, “The appellant (plaintiff) as noted earlier, has brought on record the evidence in his support which in his assessment adequately establishes his case. His suit will succeed or fall with those evidence, subject of course to the evidence adduced by the other side. When the plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to the DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy. Seen from this perspective, the impugned judgment merits interference and is set aside. Inconsequence thereof, the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 28.11.2017 is restored. The suit is ordered to proceed accordingly.”   

Click Here To Read The Judgement

Judgment Reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

The man alleged of causing injury to the informant side granted pre-arrest bail. It was alleged that the petitioner along with one other open fire. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter of Dhiraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2086 of 2021].               

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was arrested in Sikandra PS Case No. 93 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 307, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner along with four others was alleged of firing on the informant. The petitioner open fire by pistol and co-accused were alleged to cause injury to the informant. 

The Learned Counsel pointed out that no one was hurt during the firing by the petitioner. Additionally, it was submitted that only Upendra Kumar has been attributed to firing on Suresh Kumar, who has suffered a bullet injury. The petitioner had no criminal antecedent and was submitted that in a similar case of co-accused Kedar Yadav and Gorelal Yadav [Cr. Misc. No.37727 of 2020] was granted bail.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna contended that there has been an only omnibus allegation that the petition had fired from pistol without any injury caused and that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedent. The court was inclined towards granting a pre-arrest bail. The petition was disposed on the terms that the petitioner shall cooperate with the court, police, and prosecution. Any failure to the terms and incorporation shall lead to the cancellation of the bond. The pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioners after listening to both parties.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” …in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui, in Sikandra PS Case No. 93 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner and (iii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or undertaking or failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.”

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

Normally in a motor vehicle accident case, seeking payment of compensation would satisfy the offending party (victim), and when they are satisfied they are not interested to continue with prosecution in the criminal proceeding. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court Of Meghalaya before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh in the matter of  Shri Dapyooki Dkhar & Anr Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr [Crl. Petn. No.34 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case are associated with Petitioner no. 2 who was the complainant, who had lodged an FIR under sections 279/337/338/304(A) IPC at the Sadar Police Station, Shillong dated 20.06.2020. Other Petitioner no.1 was the police constable who was serving in the Meghalaya Police. By lodging the FIR, petitioner no.2 brought the attention of the police regarding a motor accident that took place on 17.06.2020 near Delhi Mistan Bhandar, Police Bazaar, Shillong. In the said accident the father of petitioner no.2 got hit by Petitioner no.1 and that his father couldn’t survive due to injuries and expired on 20.06.2020. It was decided by both the petitioners to settle the matter out of the court and according to the terms Petitioner no1 agreed to compensate by giving Rs 4lacs and Petitioner no 2 would withdraw the FIR. 

In the meantime, the charge sheet was already filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong by the Investigating Officer dated 06.11.2020. Since petitioner no 1 was charged with sections 279 and 304(A) IPC which are non-compoundable, the magistrate has no jurisdiction to allow the compromise between the parties under section 320 of Cr.P.C. Learned advocate, Mr. A.S. Siddique representing the petitioners, contended that it was pointless to proceed with the already compromised case and that the case is suitable for the court to quash it by exercising its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Court expressed that it was better to look for relevant authorities and decisions by the supreme court to find out if the case can be examined when both parties compromised and decided to settle outside the court and.

The Hon’ble Court, after considering all the facts stated that “This being the case, on the strength of the authorities cited, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application of the Petitioners is entitled to be allowed. In view of the above, the dispute between the parties having been resolved, it would be futile to proceed with the said criminal proceeding against the Petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 92(s) of 2020 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong Smti D.M.K. Shadap is hereby quashed and bail bond executed if any stands discharged against the accused therein. Matter is hereby disposed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

 The state is duty-bound to make all infrastructural and medical facilities available to save the life of people affected or likely to be affected by Coronavirus held by Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Smt. Pushpa V. Gandediwala in the case of Court in its own Motion Vs. Union of India through its secretary and Ors., (R) [Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation No.4 of 2020].

It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that the main issue which requires our immediate attention was of making the ventilators and oxygenated beds available to the patients of moderate and severe conditions so as to reduce the death rate. The people were required to travel from one Hospital to another with serious patients and for want of accommodation, the newspaper report showed that the deaths were occurring. They must note with regret that for want of medical aid, the people were falling pray to Corona Virus. So, therefore, thought that without going into the legal niceties, an immediate arrangement could be worked out to reduce the death rate. Hence, they tried to work out the solution.

 The Hon’ble Court while examining the issue of non-availability of beds observed that “The problem of non-availability of the medical and para-medical staff can also not be a problem to deny the admission in the hospital to the patients. Even private Doctors are under obligation to provide the treatment. The preservation of human life is of paramount importance. Once life is lost, it cannot be restored. Every Doctor whether he is in Government or Semi-Government Hospitals or private professional is under obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. Even private Doctors cannot refuse to render their services during pandemics in all such Hospitals where they are called or their services are needed. Similar is the position in respect of para-medical staff. It is the obligation on the State to secure adequate para-medical staff from all such sources as are available and non-availability of it cannot be countenance.”

The Hon’ble Court quoted the portion of the observations of the Apex Court in paras 8, 14 and 15 of the decision in the case of Pt. Parmanand Katara versus Union of India [1989 (4) SCC 286]. Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life.

It was also pronounced by Hon’ble Court that the judges and the lawyers have made themselves available 24×7 to serve the causes in the pandemic situations and there would be nothing wrong to expect the medical and paramedical staff to be available 24×7 in this pandemic situation.

 It was held by the Hon’ble Court that “We do not want a situation to occur where the patients are required to travel from one Hospital to another to secure the position in ICU, ventilated beds or oxygenated beds or due to non-availability of the services of medical and para-medical staff. If any patient requires medical assistance and approaches any Hospital or DCHC where such facility is not available for any reason whatsoever, such Hospitals or DCHCs should immediately make a necessary enquiry and help the patient to reach the proper destination. It shall be the duty of the Municipal Commissioner and the Task Force to see that all the Hospitals and DCHCs should provide the information and contact numbers of the Hospitals where such facilities can be easily made available and the patients are not required to travel from pillar to post. We have seen the affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and we find that such responsibility is shouldered by the Municipal Commissioner. We also expect the Task Force to spring in action to supervise the infrastructural facilities and manpower in the Hospitals and DCHCs.”

Finally, the decision came and they made it clear that there should be no prohibition for the patients of COVID-19 to had a consultation with the Doctor of their choice who could visit and examine the patient anywhere in any Hospital or DCHC and advised investigation and medication. This will reduce the responsibilities of others.

Click here to read the judgement

 

Judgement reviewed by-Sarita Kumari