Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Regarding appellant’s attempt to overtake a vehicle, the Court stated that he was doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. Furthermore, it was proved that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.
The Court stated that EC Regulation 261 provides a standardised level of compensation for passengers which does not require complex analysis. Requiring an enquiry into why, when and how a staff member became ill would be contrary to the intended operation of the scheme.
Petitioner was a young girl of 27 years, when the impugned letter was passed and she could not do anything for the next four years because of the aforesaid letter, which was passed without the authority of law. It has seriously affected her career and studies apart from other incidental consequences.
“The action of the Lucknow University in not only in violation of principle of nature justice but has deleterious effect on the future of the candidate and such an action is deplorable.”
The Court observed that MCD is a big Government Department, and this civic agency must be handling innumerable matters but that does not give any automatic handle to MCD to file written statement as per its own whims and fancies.
The Court observed that the parents of the victims were illiterate and that the appellant’s allegations of false implications and extortion on the victim’s family’s part did not inspire any confidence as per evidence on record.
This is an unfortunate malaise that festers in hierarchies of Public Sector Bank and other bodies which has and continues to severely impact the man resources and impede the growth and wellbeing of an organization and its employees. Any special request from an employee out of the ordinary, even if supported by the Bank’s rules, is looked at with contempt and discomfort.
The Court stated that even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right and was never a natural right, it must be accepted that without the right to property, other rights become illusory.
Setting aside the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal and awarding compensation to legal representatives of the deceased the Court stated that a rash and negligent act cannot be equated with a criminal act resulting in self-inflicted injury and held that the injury sustained by the deceased was an ‘untoward incident’ as under Section 123(c)(2) of the 1989 Act.
The Court stated that the appellants were entitled to the compensation on the count of ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of dependency’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’.
“The seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300A, non-compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law.”
The Court referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Balakrishnan, wherein the Supreme Court had distinguished between a Comprehensive/Package Policy and Act Policy by stating that an Act Policy cannot cover a third-party risk of an occupant in a car, but a Comprehensive/Package Policy would cover such risk.
On the demand of around Rs. 44 Crores, only Rs. 9 Crores was provided to Assam State Legal Services Authority by the Finance Department and the Law Department of the State, for providing compensation to the victims.
Section 161 of the Railways Act, 1989 makes it compulsory for the drivers of every vehicle crossing an unmanned level crossing, to stop and to observe whether any train is coming, before crossing the level crossing, but in the present case, the driver failed to do so.
Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use, and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings are completed
by Seema Bengani†
The Court discussed the difference between a gratuitous passenger travelling in a private vehicle that met with an accident, and the deceased wife of the insured in the instant case who was held to be covered as a “third party”. The distinction proved to be elemental in granting “just compensation” to the appellants.
“It would be a travesty if the entitlement of the family members of the deceased scavenging workers is confined to Rs.10,00,000. The same would defeat the directions of the Supreme Court to enhance the compensation to Rs. 30,00,000/- on the basis that the previously fixed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was fixed far back in 1993 and was not an adequate compensation.”
Delhi High Court stated that to avoid Appellant 1 advancing the contention that the costs had to be shared by Lord Hanuman, it is clarified that the costs would be entirely payable by him.
The Court observed that the Labour Court’s Award is not happily worded, especially where it holds that in absence of a police complaint, employee’s act of overwriting on gate pass cannot be considered forgery.