The Madras High Court has hiked the compensation to a woman, whose both legs had to be amputated after an accident, to Rs 31.20 lakh from Rs 13.55 lakh.
The Madras High Court has hiked the compensation to a woman, whose both legs had to be amputated after an accident, to Rs 31.20 lakh from Rs 13.55 lakh.
The court also rapped the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for its "flawed" computation of the claimant's monthly income, as a result of which it determined a lower compensation amount to the victim, to be paid by the state transport corporation.
Justice S Vimala, in her order, said the tribunal should have taken judicial notice of the fact that there would be future medical expenses for the claimant towards fixing an artificial limb.
Also, she said, the tribunal should have considered the future earning capacity of the claimant "in proper perspective".
Enhancing the compensation amount for Dhanalakshmi (35), the judge said the tribunal faulted in calculating her monthly income, based on a notional basis, at Rs 4,500.
"The flaw, which is noticeable...bespoke an utter lack of concern and egregious ignorance of economic thought on the part of the tribunal," the judge said and fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs 6,000 by factoring in all the aspects.
Taking into account the value of household services rendered by a servant to the victim and her family, the judge added another Rs 2,000.
Considering a future prospective increase in the claimant's monthly income at Rs 2,000, the judge fixed the total monthly income at Rs 10,000 and fixed the compensation amount at Rs 31.20 lakh.
A tuition teacher and self-employed, the victim is a widow, who suffered a double amputation below her knees after a 2011 road accident involving a government bus.
According to the judge, a key aspect which had eluded the tribunal's consideration was the services rendered by the injured woman prior to and after the accident.
A calculation of those services in terms of money was the most difficult thing, the court said, and noted that a provision had to be made for the victim's own life, apart from that of her dependent child.
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}