Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Cannot Be Based On Straight Jacket Formula: SC
Recently, a division bench of the Supreme Court of Justice MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that claim for motor accident compensation depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and not on a straight jacket formula. It depends on the sufferings, loss of amenities, and happiness which differs on a case-to-case basis.
In this case, the claimant had suffered grievous brain injuries after suffering from a motor vehicle accident. As a result, he applied for compensation before the Motor Accident Tribunal and High Court. Being aggrieved by the low compensation that he was awarded by both of them. He subsequently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Apex court increased the compensation from 1 lakh Rupees to 10 lakh Rupees at 6% per annum. It further held that the High Court’s decision to award 2 lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering was unreasonable and very low, considering his long hospitalization and multiple injuries suffered by him.
Wife leaving home after the entry of concubine brought by husband does not amount to desertion: Chhattisgarh HC
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that it is not desertion if a husband brings home a concubine while his marriage subsists with his wife as a result she leaves the home as a result. A Division Bench of Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Rajani Dubey was hearing an appeal from a family court ruling that refused the husband’s request for a divorce due to desertion. It was decided that if a husband keeps another woman, gives her shelter, and proceeds to have children with her, and the first wife leaves the matrimonial house as a result of this, it cannot be considered desertion. As a result, the family court’s decision was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
Both Charge sheet Sec 173(3) And Supplementary Charge Sheet Sec 173(8) Needs To Be Considered to determine if the accused committed a crime: SC
To determine whether an accused committed the offence, the bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant stated that both the reports under Sections 173(3) and 173(8) must be read together and their cumulative effect and appended materials must be analyzed. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the Magistrate’s order for the simple reason that, following the submission of the investigating officer’s supplementary report, the Magistrate was required by the Vinay Tyagi decision, as well as the subsequent three-Judge Bench decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya, to consider both the original and the supplementary report before determining the next steps to be taken.
District and State consumer forums can hear cases of medical negligence: Kerela HC
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that complaints about medical malpractice or service defects can be filed with the District and State Consumer Disputes Redress Commissions. According to Justice N Nagaresh, the Consumer Protection Act of 2019’s definition of “services” is broad and not complete, particularly for public utility services. The decision was made in response to a petition submitted by numerous doctors against whom the respondent had filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redress Commission, seeking compensation of Rs 32,52,000 for loss of vision allegedly caused by their medical negligence.
SC rejected the interim report suggesting 27% reservations for OBC’S in Maharashtra local body elections.
The State Election Commission (SEC) was ordered by the Apex Court to not to act on the interim report and to hold elections without the 27 percent OBC quota. Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and CT Ravikumar, held that the triple test set forth in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra must be met before OBCs are given seats in local bodies. In addition, the interim report stated that it was prepared in the absence of empirical study and research by the commission. The Supreme Court ordered the SEC to announce the election process in those local bodies where elections are late without delay, in accordance with the prohibition against making OBC reservations, because the interim report submitted by the SEC did not meet the triple-test.
Accepting highest bid by State in the auction, not mandatory: SC
The acceptance of the highest bid is conditional on confirmation by the responsible authority that is the best judge in the matter, ruled by the division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka. In particular, the Supreme Court stated that courts should exercise caution when interfering with executive decisions in economic and contractual concerns. In this case, the Apex court declared that until the confirmation letter is issued, no right exists under Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules if the public auction has been completed to the highest bidder.
Case Name: State of Punjab and ors v. Mehar Din
SC rejected the interim report suggesting 27% reservations for OBC’S in Maharashtra local body elections.
The State Election Commission (SEC) was ordered by the Apex Court to not to act on the interim report and to hold elections without the 27 percent OBC quota. Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and CT Ravikumar, held that the triple test set forth in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra must be met before OBCs are given seats in local bodies. In addition, the interim report stated that it was prepared in the absence of empirical study and research by the commission. The Supreme Court ordered the SEC to announce the election process in those local bodies where elections are late without delay, in accordance with the prohibition against making OBC reservations, because the interim report submitted by the SEC did not meet the triple-test.
