Tag: #judgement

-Report by Harshit Yadav

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT No. 50797/2016. The case involves the death of Naresh due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 08.05.2014 in front of the NDPL office, inside Shiv Vihar Road, Karala road, Delhi. Naresh was driving his engine-fitted rickshaw thela when a Tata Tempo, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the rickshaw thela with great force. Due to the impact, Naresh fell and sustained grievous injuries which resulted in his death. An FIR was registered at PS Kanjhawala. The main issues involved in this appeal are whether the compensation awarded towards “loss of consortium” is justified and proper and whether the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection” would be payable or not.

FACTS

The case involves the death of Naresh, who died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident on 08.05.2014. Naresh was driving his engine-fitted rickshaw thela when suddenly a Tata Tempo bearing registration no. HR-46D-0998, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the rickshaw thela of the deceased with great force. Due to the impact, Naresh fell and sustained grievous injuries which resulted in his death. The main issues involved in this appeal are whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards “loss of consortium” is justified and proper and whether the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection” would be payable or not. The appellant’s counsel argued that the compensation towards the non-pecuniary heads shall be Rs. 70,000/- only in a lump sum and that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side and should be reduced to 6% per annum. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the respondents.

ISSUES RAISED

a) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards “loss of consortium” is justified and proper?

b) Whether the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection” would be payable or not?

CONTENTIONS

The appellant argues that the learned Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. They contend that as per recent judgments and prevailing law, compensation towards loss of love and affection should not have been awarded. Furthermore, the compensation awarded towards the loss of consortium is excessive, and only the widow of the deceased is entitled to such compensation. The appellant also contends that the rate of interest awarded is on the higher side and should be reduced.

The respondent argues that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is justified and proper. They contend that as per settled law, compensation towards loss of consortium should be awarded to all the claimants, including the children of the deceased. Furthermore, compensation towards loss of love and affection is also payable as per recent judgments. The respondent also contends that the rate of interest awarded is appropriate and should not be reduced.

JUDGEMENT

Based on the facts presented, the appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against an award passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT No. 50797/2016. The appeal sought to challenge the compensation awarded towards “loss of consortium” and “loss of love and affection.”

The accident occurred on May 8, 2014, in front of the NDPL office on Shiv Vihar Road, Karala road, Delhi, where the deceased was driving his engine-fitted rickshaw thela. A Tata Tempo, driven by the offending vehicle’s driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the rickshaw thela, resulting in the deceased falling and sustaining grievous injuries, leading to his death. An FIR was registered at PS Kanjhawala under sections 279/304A IPC.

After hearing the counsel for the appellant and reviewing the award, the court found that the compensation awarded towards “loss of consortium” was justified and proper, as per the settled law that all claimants are entitled to compensation under this head. However, regarding the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection,” the court referred to the judgment of National Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. and reduced the compensation to Rs. 70,000/- only in a lump sum to be payable only to the widow of the deceased. The court also reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 6% per annum.

Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal in part, reduced the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection” to Rs. 70,000/- payable only to the widow of the deceased, and reduced the rate of interest to 6% per annum.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/42OTwbY

-Report by Radhika Mittal

This is a case about an eviction notice issued by the Public Welfare Department for the land occupied by the Appellant, which is a Trust established for the purpose of maintaining a Shiv Temple and Gaushala located in New Delhi. This case delves into the rights of the aggrieved slum dwellers as well as the statutory adherence to government policy.

FACTS :

The Appellant is aggrieved by the Eviction Notice and filed a petition seeking quashing of the Impugned Notice and the issuance of appropriate directions prohibiting the Respondents from carrying out demolition/evacuation proceedings in the said premises.

The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the petition, found that the premises in question do not come within the jhuggi cluster which has been notified as per the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the occupants of the premises were not entitled to protection from demolition.

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant filed an instant appeal. The Appellant contends that the cow shelter and temple have been present on the said premises for more than 15 years and that the Impugned Notice is illegal and arbitrary. The Respondent, on the other hand, has defended the Impugned Order by bringing to the attention of this Court that the place where the premises exist does not come within any notified cluster as notified under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Relocation Policy, 2015.

The Court analyzed the said Policy and held that in order to get the benefit of the said Policy, a jhuggi jhopri basti cluster defined under the Act ought to have been in existence prior or 01.01.2006 and the person should have constructed his jhuggi within the cluster prior to 01.01.2015. The Court held that the premises in question do not come within any notified cluster and, therefore, the demolition cannot be stayed for the said premises.

CONTENTIONS :

This is an appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging an eviction notice issued by the Respondent Public Welfare Department for the land occupied by the Appellant’s Trust, which runs a Shiv Temple and Gaushala, and provides shelter to ailing, old and abandoned cows. The notice was issued to all occupants of the premises, including the Appellant’s Trust, directing them to vacate the premises within 15 days. The eviction notice stated that if the occupants failed to do so, they would be removed and relocated to a Shelter Home at Dwarka, Geeta Colony, where they could reside for a period of 3 months. The Single Judge found that the premises did not come within the jhuggi cluster that had been notified under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and therefore the occupants were not entitled to protection from demolition. The Single Judge directed the Respondent to allot an alternate accommodation for the cow shelter within a week, and further that such alternate cow shelter would be exempt from the maximum stay period of three months. The Appellant challenged this order in the instant appeal, arguing that the cow shelter and temple have been present on the said premises for more than 15 years and that the eviction notice is illegal and arbitrary. The Respondent argued that the place where the premises exist does not come within any notified cluster as notified under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and therefore the demolition cannot be stayed for the said premises.

JUDGEMENT :

The court heard both parties and perused the material on record, including the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010, and held that in order to get the benefit of the said Policy, a jhuggi jhopri basti cluster defined under the Act, ought to have been in existence prior or 01.01.2006 and the person should have constructed his jhuggi within the cluster prior to 01.01.2015. A survey was conducted to identify various clusters which were entitled to get the benefit of the said Policy. The court found that the premises in question did not come within any notified cluster and the occupants were not entitled to protection from demolition. However, the court directed the Respondent to allot an alternate accommodation for the cow shelter within a week, and such alternate cow shelter would be exempt from the maximum stay period of three months.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40glb3l

-Report by Sejal Jethva

The parties involved in this case are SUBHASH SOLANKI (Appellant) and DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD & ORS. (Respondents). The appellant is allegedly occupying the store illegally and it is claimed that he continued to run his business out of the aforementioned shop after his father passed away and that no one else took over the operation.

FACTS:

The business in dispute was reportedly given to the appellant’s father in 1976 when he was just 14 years old. According to the claim, the appellant was not aware of the terms and circumstances of the allotment at the time of his father’s death in 2009, and as a result, he was unable to submit an application to change the name of the business in question as his father’s legitimate heir. According to the claim, the father of the appellant died away on July 1, 2010, and that day the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board was established.

It is claimed that the appellant kept operating his company out of the aforementioned shop following the death of the father and that no one else took over the operation.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The skilled attorney for the appellant claims that just a possession slip has been given to the appellant’s father in relation to the store in question, and no official allocation letter has been issued in his favour. It is argued that the appellant was unable to request a shop’s modification since he was not aware of the terms and circumstances of the allotment.

The knowledgeable Attorney for the Appellant further asserts that there is no disputing the fact that the Appellant’s father owned the store in question, hence the DUSIB had no difficulty transferring ownership of the shop to the Appellant.

The learned attorney representing the appellant claims that the DUSIB’s policy should be to grant mutation in favour of the legal heirs if there is no dispute regarding who is the initial allottee’s legal heirs so that they can make a living from the store or property that had been allocated to the initial allottee.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

In contrast, Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, knowledgeable Counsel representing the DUSIB, argued that not only had it been established that the original allottee had entered into an agreement to hire or transfer the appellant to the shop in question, but also that the shop had undergone significant unpermitted construction. The knowledgeable attorney for the DUSIB further notes that shop No. 38, which is currently occupied by the appellant, was also discovered to have been amalgamated with shop No. 37, which is obviously against the terms of allotment and the policy under which the shop was initially allotted to the allottee.

The knowledgeable Attorney for DUSIB also asserts that following the death of his father, the appellant never requested a formal allocation of the store in issue from the authorities.

The evidence on file demonstrates that the Appellant was the subject of proceedings under Sections 41/42 of the DUSIB Act, 2010 for eviction from the aforementioned store. Records show that the in-issue store was given on a licensee fee basis and that the sale or purchase of the shop was prohibited under the terms and circumstances.

JUDGEMENT:

1. The appellant in this case currently resides in Shop No.38 Block-4, Dakshinpuri Extn., New Delhi, and his wife Meena Solanki currently resides in Shop No.37 Block-4, Dakshinpuri Extn., New Delhi. According to documents, one Sh. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Giasi Ram was given this business on a licensee fee basis in 1976. The sale or purchase of the shop is prohibited under the terms and conditions. During a study by the DUSIB survey unit, it was discovered that the shop had been sold to the original allottee, that it had been combined with Shop No. 37, and that there had been extensive unlawful development up to five floors and encroachment on departmental land. The store is being illegally occupied by

2. The learned Single Judge declined to overturn the authorities’ contemporaneous conclusions. The following are the briefly listed requirements for allocation:

1. “a) The sole basis for the allocation was a license;
2. The allotment was made for commercial use and not for residential purposes;
3. the allottee(s) do not have any right to transfer, alienate, or in any other way dispose of the allotted shop(s) in favour of a third party;
4. the allottee(s) do not have any right to carry out structural additions or alterations in the premises without prior written permission from the DUSIB; and
5. as a matter of public policy

3. As a result, the appeal is rejected together with any outstanding applications, if any.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3ZWH881