TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the plea that the accident was an act of God exempted the corporation from liability to pay compensation; (ii) whether the compensation and interest awarded by the High Court required interference and, if so, to what extent.
Issue (i): whether the plea that the accident was an act of God exempted the corporation from liability to pay compensation.
Analysis: The expression "act of God" was treated as applying only to extraordinary natural events not reasonably foreseeable or preventable by human prudence. The accident was found to have occurred in the course of a vehicular mishap involving the bus, and the mere invocation of natural force was not enough to displace liability on the facts.
Conclusion: The plea of act of God did not exonerate the corporation from liability.
Issue (ii): whether the compensation and interest awarded by the High Court required interference and, if so, to what extent.
Analysis: The award had to conform to the statutory standard of "just" compensation. The Court distinguished pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, held that compensation must be fair, reasonable, and neither a windfall nor a pittance, and recalibrated the heads of damages by correcting the income basis, restoring the award for loss of marital life, reducing the amount for pain and suffering, and scaling down future medical expenses while sustaining the other components and the rate of interest. Schedule II was treated as a guide for assessing the multiplicand and multiplier.
Conclusion: The compensation was modified to Rs. 4.50 lakhs with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, and the award was interfered with only to that extent.
Final Conclusion: The claim award was substantially upheld but reassessed on the principle of just compensation, resulting in a reduced total compensation and consequential directions for deposit and investment of part of the amount.
Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, compensation must be just, fair, and rational, assessed on established heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, and an act of God defence succeeds only where the occurrence is truly unforeseeable and irresistible.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
