Damages

Supreme Court e@Journal

Damages - Accident had occurred because of the blue cows (Nilgais) - As per earlier instructions of the Department of Wild Life Preservation, Compensation was to be paid to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in case of death of an adult due to attack of wild animals, which has now been revised to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs - Compensation paid as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) - Compensation shall be paid by the respondents with 9% interest to be calculated from the date of application filed for compensation. (183) PLR
Damages - Cattle shed of the applicant had caught fire as a result of sparking from the electric wire - Electric pole is at a distance of only five feet from the place of the occurrence and the fire to the chhappar has been caused due to sparking of the pole head wires - When weather was very hot and in such an environment sparking from the jampers of the electric poles is always possible because they are likely to get loose due to the pressure of blow of the hot winds - In that climate, hot winds can carry the sparking to a considerable distance - During those days, catching of fire of a thatched cattle shed which is always vulnerable to fire, as a result of sparking in the jampers at a distance of 12-13 feet was not impossible - Award passed in favour of the applicant - Upheld. (175) PLR
Damages - Death due to electrocution - Deceased aged 7 years - Rs. 6,00,000/- awarded as compensation. (175) PLR
Damages - Deceased was stated to be a student doing 1st year in Bachelor of Computer Applications - Death due to kidnapping and murder - If it were to be assumed that the basis of claim were under the Fatal Accidents Act, there was not scope for any compensation to be awarded in favour of the grandmother - Claim was made under the law that provides for the loss to the representatives of the deceased to make a claim for compensation against the person who was responsible for causing the fatality - Assessment have due regard to the social and economic status of the parties and the educational attainments of the deceased person - Rs.7,00,000/- awarded as compensation - No scope for scaling down the compensation. (182) PLR
Damages - For causing death - It was asserted that the deceased was the aggressor and to protect himself, he has given spade blow, which landed on the head of the deceased - The plea of of self-defence is a plea to escape from criminal culpability for an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder - But such is not a defence in the civil proceedings - The evidence on record conclusively proved the wrongful causing of death - Damages - Upheld. (175) PLR
Damages - Law is well laid down that not merely for tortious wrongs, even criminal offences resulting in death would leave a trail of claim for damages against the person who caused the death on the principles brought down under the Fatal Accidents Act - Even otherwise victim compensation is the norm which is recognized even under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which makes possible a scheme of compensation for enforcement by the representatives of the victim in a murder case and obtain such a right against the assailant/accused - The suit was well founded. (180) PLR
Damages - Loan taken from society - Death of before he could re-pay the loan - In order to recover the money, the Society appointed the Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Bathinda to arbitrate the dispute - An ex parte award was passed - Without hearing him or allowing him to produce evidence in defence - Nominee brother of the deceased who had not inherited any property - Was held liable - Having got the illegal arbitration award set aside by civil decree - Filed suit for damages - Malicious intention is not a combination of words of arts since there is still intention which has to be gathered and understood arising from a bundle of facts and circumstances - When facts speak for themselves, then the proceedings should not have been initiated against the plaintiff on the sole ground that he was a nominee - Damages awarded by lower Court upheld. (179) PLR
Damages - Malicious prosecution - Requires three ingredients: (i) a complaint brought through malice; (ii) a prosecution of the criminal case before a court of competent jurisdiction and (iii) a judgment of acquittal - A mere complaint to the police that led to an investigation finding that the plaintiffs had no role to play cannot constitute a prosecution of a criminal case - Mere complaint to the police of an evidence of any member of the public that he felt the plaintiffs' honour having been lowered by such a complaint could afford no ground for action.(181) PLR
Damages - Malicious Prosecution - The onus to prove that the proceedings were initiated without any reasonable cause is always on the person who asserts in affirmative i.e. the plaintiff in the present case who seeks damages on account of alleged false accusation - Where acquittal is recorded by the Court or a complaint is dismissed on the ground that it does not disclose any cognizable offence - The findings recorded in such process may or may not have contained a finding that the prosecution case is based on falsehood and is thus frivolous - Recording of such findings are only for the purpose of dismissal of the complaint or criminal prosecution - Mere filing of complaint does not give rise to any malicious prosecution resulting in causing loss of reputation in general public, friends, relatives of the person who is so targeted. (178) PLR
Damages - Petitioner filed a suit claiming damages/ compensation of Rs.8 lacs - In para 17 of the plaint, it has been specifically mentioned that the suit is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee at Rs.8 lacs - But still tentative court fee of Rs.500/- was affixed but even for the purpose of jurisdiction and court the suit has been valued at Rs. 8 lacs - To state that the court fee at a lesser tentative amount is payable is totally misconceived - Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870) Section 7(IV)(C). (179) PLR
Damages - Quantum - The precise quantum of compensation that should be awarded in any given case cannot and, in fact, need not be determined with mathematical exactitude or arithmetical precision - So long the compensation awarded broadly represents what could be the entitlement of a claimant in any given case the discretion vested in the trial court and the regular first appellate court ought not to be lightly interfered. (175) PLR
Damages - Remarks are derogatory and defermatory in nature - No doubt, the insinuation, by saying that the appellant was having his meals in a Gurdwara and living there, would be that the appellant is not able to earn his own means of livelihood - However, when the words are taken in the context of a testimony in a closed environment, even of an open Court, with the appellant obviously able to rebut the said testimony, in my opinion, the matter cannot go to the length of seeking such damages from the person who makes such kind of a statement, only in Court - Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860). Capt. (182) PLR
Damages - Suffered multiple fracture of lumbar vertebare with complete dislocation of the spinal cord and despite treatment he become a paraplegic i.e. 100% disabled below the waist - Awarded Rs.4,00,000/- for loss of future prospects in employment, Rs.4,00,000/- for keeping an attendant, Rs.3,00,000/- for non-pecuniary loss including pain and suffering loss of limb etc. (175) PLR
Damages - Suit for damages - Defendant proceeded exparte - Order became final - Trial Court has proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the evidence, as has been led by the respondents-plaintiff, according to which, the allegations against the appellant-defendants with regard to the defamation and lowering his reputation in the eyes and estimation of his relatives, friends and society have been duly proved - An decree of damages - Upheld. (182) PLR
Damages - Suit for damages - Letter requesting opening of LOC was sent pursuant to which LOC [Look-Out-Circular] was issued - It is the case of the plaintiff himself that the LOC was widely published and he could not leave Canada for over 7 years and meet his relatives and dear ones - Thus at least in the year 2003 SS came to know about opening of the LOC - Suit in this regard could have been filed only within three months of the date of the act or within one year with the previous sanction of the Administrator - The finding of the learned Single Judge vide the order dated August 11, 2010 in W.P.(CRL)1315/2008 that the LOC was opened for extraneous reasons by a officer not authorized does not give rise to the cause of action as a judicial order only adjudicate a lis - Suit in this regard could have been filed only within three months of the date of the act or within one year with the previous sanction of the Administrator. D(182) PLR
Damages - That claim to damages could be done only upto the stage when a re-auction was held on 18.6.2002 is also without merit - The fundamental principle in law is that a person who claims damages must mitigate the claim to the maximum - If the re-auction held is without any merit - In this case, a re-auction was held on the ground mentioned in the pleadings that there had been pooling of bids and it was, therefore, essential to cancel the same and go for 3rd auction which literally vindicated the plaintiff's contention that there had been a pooling of bidders by the fact that the re-auction fetched higher prices - There was a mitigation of damages - As far as the defendant was concerned, he cannot complain that the 3rd re-auction was not justified - The claim for damages was, therefore, perfectly competent - Right of purchaser will have to be governed by the terms of auction. (180) PLR
Damages - The liability cannot cease for others if they had been associating themselves with a common intent to cause injuries that resulted in death. (182) PLR
Damages for Malicious Prosecution - In a suit a suit for damages for malicious prosecution the principle of evaluation of suit as in simple suits for recovery of liquidated claim will not apply for the purposes of court fee - Only a tentative valuation can be made and that should be accepted for un-liquidated damage. (178) PLR
Damages - Public law and Private law - “The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court molds the relief by granting ‘compensation’ in proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’ under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages’ awarded against the wrong doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.” Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa. (1993) 2 SCC 746