0

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Revises Compensation in Motor Accident Claim, Reduces Amount by INR 4.45 Lakh: Highlights Calculation Errors

Blog, The Madurai Bench of Madras Court , , ,

Case Title – The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors.
Case Number – CMA (MD) No. 249/2021 and CMP (MD) No. 2123/2021
Dated on – 18th April, 2024
Quorum – Justice RMT. Teekaa Raman and Justice P.B. Balaji

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors., originated from a motor accident involving a private bus and a two-wheeler driven by Akbar Ali, who died in the accident. His Children and wife, Ramzan Begum (Respondent) and other injured passengers instituted multiple MCOPs (387, 388, 389, 391, and 429 of 2016) for compensation. The Insurance company (Appellant) contested the award, especially focusing on the MCOP No. 387 of 2016. The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent based on the testimonies of the Witness (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5). The Tribunal awarder compensation to Akbar Ali and his family based on his alleged income as an Operations Manager in Malaysia, converting his salary to Indian Currency and adding future prospects. The Appellant, thereby, contested the negligence finding the quantum of compensation, asserting that the calculation based on foreign earnings and future prospects was incorrect.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the driver of the private bus was negligent in causing the accident that led to the death of Akbar Ali?
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal properly assessed the compensation amount awarded to the family of Akbar Ali?
Whether the Tribunal correctly accounted for future prospects in the income of the deceased and applied appropriate deductions for personal expenses and dependency?
Whether the interest rate applied to the awarded compensation was appropriate and aligned with the legal standards?
Whether the grounds presented by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in their appeal were sufficient to warrant a modification of the awarded compensation?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section
Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes the Appeal
Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Evidence to be taken in presence of accused

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that Akbar Ali was negligent and responsible for the accident and that moreover he was not exercising due caution while riding the motorcycle, which contributed to the accident.
The Appellant claimed that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was excessive and not in accordance with the actual financial loss suffered by the family of the deceased and that the Tribunal did not appropriate deductions for personal expenses, thus, a higher percentage should have been deducted from the income of the deceased person for the personal living expenses, reducing the amount available for dependency.
Further it was asserted that the Tribunal overestimated the monthly income of the deceased and that the calculation of the income of the deceased was without sufficient basis. The future prospects should not have been considered or should not have been applied at a lower rate.
Moreover, the interest rate applied to the awarder compensation was too high, thus it was asserted for a reduction in the interest rate to align with the current legal standards and financial conditions.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the bus driver was entirely at fault for the accident and that the bus driver was driving recklessly and negligently, which directly caused the death of Akbar Ali.
It was asserted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was fair and just, given the circumstances and the financial loss suffered by the family of Akbar Ali and that the amount was in accordance with the legal precedents and the needs of the dependents.
The assessment done by the Tribunal of the monthly income of Akbar Ali was supported by the Respondents and provided evidence that Akbar Ali had a stable and significant income, which was appropriately considered by the Tribunal.
Furthermore, it was argued that the inclusion of the future prospects in the income calculation was justified and that Akbar Ali, being young and in stable employment, had a reasonable expectations of future income growth.
The Respondent maintained that the deductions applied for personal expenses were appropriate and aligned with the legal standards and argued that the Tribunal correctly calculated the amount available for dependency.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors., discovered that the monthly salary of the deceased, Akbar Ali was RM 3000 which if converted to INR 45,000 with 25% as added future prospect, the income is INR 56,250 and after a 30% tax deduction and a 10% economic disparity adjustment, the final monthly income is INR 33,750. The court calculated the pecuniary loss of INR 40,50,000 using a multiplier of 15 and considering 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses due to three dependants. The court determined the Loss of Consortium as INR 1,20,000, Funeral Expenses as INR 15,000, Transportation Expenses as INR 15,000 and the Loss of Estate as INR 15,000. The court reduced the total compensation from INR 46,60,000 to INR 42,15,000, with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment.
The appeal was partly allowed by the court with specified modifications and that the Appellant was directed to deposit the reduced award within eight weeks. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as per the allocation of the Tribunal, with the share of the minor claimant to be held in an interest-bearing account until they reach majority. The claimants are required to pay court fees on the enhanced compensation amount. No costs were awarded and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P)  is closed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

NEET Exam Becomes Inclusive: The Madurai Bench of Madras Court Orders Special Accommodation for NEET Candidate with Medical Needs

Blog, The Madurai Bench of Madras Court , , , , ,

Case Title – Ms. Monisha Vs. The National Testing Agency & Anr.

Case Number – W.P. (MD) No. 9920 of 2024

Dated on – 26th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice G. R. Swaminathan

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Ms. Monisha Vs. The National Testing Agency & Anr., the Appellant instituted a Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition was instituted before the Madurai Bench of Madras Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus for instructing the National Testing Agency  (NTA), Respondent No.1, to allow the Appellant to wear a diaper and change it once or twice during the NEET (UG)-2024 Examination that is to be held on the 5th of March, 2024 since the Appellant, in the said case, suffers from the lack of control on urine due to a medical condition, which was developed when the Appellant was around 4 years old and was scalded by hot oil accidently and is taking treatment for LETM/NMO/Spectrum Disorder/ Neurogenic Bladder on OPD basic, for which she requires to wear a diaper continuously as well as change it more often.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that due to the prevailing medical condition, she needs to wear a diaper during the examination and requires to change it as and when needed.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that denial of the permission to wear a diaper during the NEET (UG) exam and changing the same as and when required is a violation of the basic human rights of the Appellant under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, especially the principle of reasonable accommodation.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case initially did not respond to the representation of the Appellant on dated 8th of March, 2024, compelling her to institute a Writ Petition.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case, contended that the dress code of the examination of NEET (UG)-2024, does not address the particular concerns raised by the Appellant in regard to wearing a diaper during the examination.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 14 of the Constitution of India prescribes that The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the Indian territory, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth
  2. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India prescribes that The State may continue to make laws that provide special provisions for women and children
  3. Article 21 of the Constitution of India prescribes that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedures established by the law
  4. Section 20(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, mandates that no government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to the employment
  5. Section 17 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, expects the appropriate government and local authorities to take specific measures to promote and facilitate inclusive education
  6. Section 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, defines the term “Reasonable Accommodation”
  7. Section 2(h) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, defines the term “Discrimination” in relation to disability

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case whirls around whether the principle of reasonable accommodation should be unfurled to individuals with special needs, despite them not falling in the ambit of disabilities recognized by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?
  2. Whether the request of the Appellant to wear a diaper and change the same during the ongoing examination of NEET (UG)-2024 is justifiable under the provisions of the Constitution of India and pertinent legal principles?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Ms. Monisha Vs. The National Testing Agency & Anr., observed that although the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, does not overtly cover individuals with special needs outside its recognised disabilities, the principle of reasonable accommodation should be applied to all the individuals with special needs. The Court, taking into consideration, the medical condition of the Appellant and the indispensability to wear a diaper as well as a change it as and when required, the court held that the denial of this facility to the Appellant would amount to discrimination under the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court, in this present case, instructed the examination authorities to accommodate the special needs of the Appellant during the NEET (UG)-2024 examination by allowing her to wear a diaper as well as a change it as and when required. The court stressed on the gravity of furnishing the apt facilities, inclusive of adequate toilet amenities and sanitary products, for all the candidates, specifically girls, to evade discrimination and assure a fair examination process.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment