Motor Accident Compensation - Supreme Court Awards Rs 15 Lakhs As Compensation For 'Pain & Suffering' To Claimant With 100% Disability

Read Judgment 

The Supreme Court recently analyzed the jurisprudence on "pain and suffering" (one of the heads under which compensation is awarded to motor accident victims) and enhanced the amount of compensation awarded - beyond what was prayed for.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, allowing the appeal of the injured-appellant, awarded a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under the head "pain and suffering" even though the appellant had prayed for Rs.10 lakhs.

"Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the 'pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant–appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."

Going through a plethora of judicial precedents and other scholarly material across various disciplines (bioethics, medical ethics, psycho-oncology, anesthesiology, philosophy, sociology), the Court found a commonality emerging that a person's understanding of oneself is "shaken or compromised" at its very root at the hands of consistent suffering.

"In the present facts, it is unquestionable that the sense of something being irreparably wrong in life, as spoken by Frank (supra); vulnerability and futility, as spoken by Edgar, is present and such a feeling will be present for the remainder of his natural life", it said.

To briefly state facts of the case, the appellant was travelling in his company vehicle when it collided with a container lorry being driven negligently. He suffered 90% permanent disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal took the appellant's functional disability as 100% and held the insurance company liable to pay Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-).

Aggrieved by the MACT order, both the appellant and the insurance company appealed to the Karnataka High Court. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.58,09,930/- to Rs.78,16,390/-. Challenging the High Court order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court and sought enhancement of compensation awarded under the heads future medical expenses, future prospects, and pain and suffering.

The Supreme Court modified the award of compensation on two counts - future prospects and 'pain and suffering'. The total amount liable to be paid to the appellant was held to be Rs.1,02,29,241/-.

In enhancing the compensation under the head 'pain and suffering', the Court noted that there was no dispute as to the injuries sustained by the appellant being serious, and their effects on his life being long-lasting.

It took into consideration a doctor's testimony, which recorded that the appellant was wheelchair bound, could not do any work, would need help for all his day-to-day activities and that the impairment was likely permanent.

The Court further referred to the decisions in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance (2022) 7 SCC 738, and Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 9 SCC 805, where compensations under the head 'pain and suffering' were enhanced and awarded between the range of Rs.3-15 lakhs.

The following extract from Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197 was also extracted in the judgement:

“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through out his life and a feeling is developed that his no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned.”

'Bulldozer Reminds Of Lawlessness' : Supreme Court Says Properties Can't Be Demolished Merely Because Of Criminal Accusations/Convictions

Read Judgment

The essential purposes of the rule of law are to prevent the abuse of power, protect the human rights and dignity of all members of society, and ensure that government actions are governed by established legal principles rather than arbitrary discretion. It serves as a safeguard against the arbitrary use of state power and is integral to democracy and good governance. Additionally, it provides a framework for predictability and stability in the legal system.

Summary of Legal Principles and Rights

• The concept of 'rule of law' emphasizes that all individuals, including government officials, must adhere to the law.

• Mechanisms must exist to enforce legal rules and protect human rights.

• Accused individuals retain rights to dignity and humane treatment, as established in legal precedents.

• Demolition of properties must follow due process, ensuring fair notice and opportunity for legal recourse.

• Public accountability and transparency are essential in state actions, preventing abuse of power by officials.

• Sending a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 13) held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

  Permitting such action by the executive is contrary to the rule of law and also a violation of the principle of separation of powers, as it is for the judiciary to pronounce on the guilt of a person.

  "The executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits.

  The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where “might was right”. In our constitution, which rests on the foundation of 'the rule of law', such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law. Our constitutional ethos and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law," the Court pronounced.

  The Court emphasised that house demolition cannot be an action against a person convicted of an offence:

  "Such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence. Even in the case of such a person the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law.

  Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of law."

  Officials taking part in illegal demolition to be held accountable

  The Court also held that the public officials who demolish the properties in such a manner should be held accountable. 

  "Public officials who take law in their hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be fastened with accountability..." the Court observed while highlighting the importance of restitution.

  The Court also observed that such actions amount to imposing "collective punishment" on the family of the accused/convict. Further, when properties are selectively demolished, there is a presumption that it was a malafide action.

  "When a particular structure is chosen for demolition all of a sudden, and the rest of similar properties are not touched, the presumption could be that the real motive was not the illegal structure but the action of penalising without trial," the Court observed.

  A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan pronounced the judgment in a batch of petitions filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and various other petitioners seeking directions to stop the trend of "bulldozer justice".

  Directions laid down by the Court

  The Court issued a set of steps to be followed before demolition.

  Even after the orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before the appropriate forum.

  Even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given to vacate.

  "It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period," the Court observed.

  The Court clarified that that these directions will not be applicable if there is any unauthorised structure in any public place such as a road, street, footpath, abutting railway lines or any river body or water body and also in cases where there is an order passed by a Court of law.

  Prior show-cause notice

  No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in the local municipal laws or within 15 days time from the date of service, whichever is later.

  The notice shall be served upon the owner by registered post. It shall also be affixed on the outer portion of the structure. The time of 15 days will start from the receipt of the said notice.

  To prevent any allegations of ante-dating, the Court directed that as soon as notice is duly served, intimation thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/District Magistrate digitally by email and auto-generated reply acknowledging the receipt of the mail should also be issued by the office of the Collector/DM.

  The DM shall designate a nodal officer and assign an email address and communicate the same to all officials in charge of building regulations within one month from today.

  Notice shall contain the nature of the unauthorized construction, details of specific violations and grounds of demolition. Notice should also specify the date for personal hearing and the designated authority.

  Every municipal authority should assign a designated digital portal within three months from the date of the judgment wherein details regarding service, pasting of notice, reply, show-cause notice, and order passed are available.

  Personal hearing and final order

  The designated authority shall allow a personal hearing to the party. The minutes of such a hearing shall be recorded. The final order of authority shall contain contentions of notice, the authority's findings and reasons, whether the unauthorised construction is compoundable, and whether the whole construction is to be demolished. The order should specify why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available.

  Judicial scrutiny of the final order

  Suppose the statute provides for an appellate authority and time for filing the appeal, even if it does not do so. In that case, the demolition order will not be implemented for 15 days from the receipt thereof. The order shall also be displayed on the digital portal.

  An opportunity should be given to the owner to remove the unauthorised construction. Only after the expiry of 15 days and the owner/occupier has not removed the unauthorised construction or if the order has not been stayed by the appellate authority, the concerned authority shall take steps to demolish the same.

  Demolition steps

  Only that part of unauthorised construction, which is not compoundable, can be demolished.

  Before demolition, a detailed inspection report must be prepared by the authority.

  The proceedings of demolition shall be videographed and preserved. The demolition report, with the list of police and civil personnel who participated in the process, should be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner and displayed in the digital portal.

  Violating the directions would lead to the initiation of contempt proceedings and prosecution.

  If the demolition is found to violate the court's orders, the officers responsible will be held liable for restitution of the demolished property at their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.

  The copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated to the Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs and Registrar Generals of all High Courts. All State Governments shall issue circulars intimating the authorities about this judgment.

Offence Within Restaurant Not 'House Trespass' As Per Sections 442, 452 IPC : Supreme Court

Observing that a restaurant cannot be said to be either a place used for human dwelling or worship or the custody of the property, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a person accused of the offence of "house trespassing after preparation for hurt" under Section 452 of IPC.

The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the Restaurant does not meet the criteria of a "house" under Section 442 IPC because it is neither a dwelling, a place of worship, nor a place for the custody of property. Thus, the necessary element for an offence under Section 452 was not fulfilled.

Read Judgment

As per Section 442 of IPC, the offence of House Trespass is said to be committed by entering into or remaining in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property.

Section 452 of the IPC punishes an act of entering or remaining on a property after preparing to cause harm or commit other criminal acts.

“452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend.”

Canada Overhauls Visa Policy, Ends Ten-Year Tourist Visa Validity

Canada has updated its visa policy, allowing officers to issue single or multiple-entry visas.

The Canadian government has revised its visa policy and will no longer issue tourist visas with a validity of up to ten years, shifting away from the practice of issuing multiple-entry visas.

Under the new guidelines, immigration officers will now have the discretion to decide whether to issue a single-entry or multiple-entry visa and to determine the appropriate validity period. Earlier, the multiple-entry visa allowed the holder to enter Canada from any country as often as necessary during the visa’s validity period. It had a maximum validity of up to 10 years or until the expiry of the travel document or biometrics.

Sexual Assault Under POCSO Can't Be Quashed Based On 'Compromise', Offence Is Heinous & Not Of Private Nature : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that matters related to sexual assault cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing. The Court emphasized the societal impact of such crimes and mandated that proceedings continue in the interest of justice.

“Obviously, rubbing the breast of a child would constitute an offence of 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years and may extend to five years and also fine. They would reveal that the commission of such offences against the children should be viewed as heinous and serious. Needless to say, that commission of such offences cannot be taken lightly as offences of private nature and in fact, such offences are bound to be taken as offences against the society.”, the Court observed.

Reference was made to the decision in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 which held that an offence against the society cannot be compromised.

The Court also approved the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Raikwar v. State and Another, which held that a POCSO Act offence cannot be "permitted to be settled."

"Because of the very object and purpose of enacting the POCSO Act, we find no reason to disagree with the conclusions in paragraph 12 (of the Delhi HC judgment) extracted above in the given case," the Supreme Court stated.

The Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the third person/appellant had no locus standi to challenge the quashing of FIR as they were not part of the criminal proceedings. The Court said that the offence of sexual assault, being grave and impacting society, cannot be categorized as a private dispute disentitling the appellant's locus to challenge FIR quashing.

“Because of the nature of the offences alleged against the third respondent, one can only say that if they are proven they could be treated only as offences against the society and at any rate, it cannot be said that prosecuting an offender against whom such allegations are made is not in the interest of the society. In fact, it would only be in the interest of the society. In that view of the matter, when by quashing the FIR by invoking the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the accused was relieved of the liability to face the trial coupled with the aforesaid circumstances and the position of law qua locus standi of third party to maintain a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, as revealed from the decisions referred above, we have no hesitation to hold that the challenge based on the appellants' locus standi got no merit at all.”, the court observed.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's order and directing that criminal proceedings against the accused continue. Emphasizing that POCSO Act cases involve serious public interest, the Court held that such matters should not be dismissed solely based on a compromise between parties.