Legs lost in accident: Relief hiked for widow

Justice S Vimala, while enhancing the compensation, said, “Apart from the monetary loss suffered on account of her inability to continue her intangible services for her family and her minor daughter, her future prospects have also been compromised because of the accident. In this age of marriages not being made in heaven, no one can deny the fact that the amputee had brighter prospects of a re-marriage before the accident.” 

As per the case, Dhanalakshmi (35), a tuition teacher, self-employed, earning Rs 6,000 a month suffered amputation of both legs, below knees, in an accident on June 17, 2011, involving a TNSTC bus. At the time of accident, the claimant was doing a Diploma in teacher training education at an institute in Uthukkuli. She is now a widow with a girl child of 11 years old. 

But, the compensation of Rs 13 lakh awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Erode was challenged on the basis that the tribunal while fixing the compensation had reduced the monthly income from Rs 6,000 to Rs 4,500 and it failed to take judicial note of the fact that the claimant would need future medical expenses towards fixing an artificial limb in future. 

Also, pointing out that the tribunal should have considered the future earning capacity of the claimant in proper perspective, it was also submitted that if not for the accident, the injured would have thought of remarrying and compensation on account of loss of re-marriage prospects should have been awarded. Justice Vimala, on holding that the tribunal rationality of fixing of income at Rs 4,500 a month is far from reality and legality, said, “The important aspect, which eluded consideration by the tribunal is the services, which were rendered by the injured woman prior to the accident and were thwarted by doing so, after that mishap. 

Calculation of those services in terms of money is the most difficult thing. In other words, the calculation of compensation in lieu of contribution to be made available by the widow to the upbringing of her dependent child is critical and it becomes all the more difficult, as provision has to be made for  her own life, apart from that of her child.”

The Madras High Court has stayed an order by CBSE mandating that the schools affiliated to it should buy NCERT books alone for the students.

Justice N Kirubakaran passing an interim order to this effect on Friday, said, “First, the CBSE has to be blamed for allowing the schools to buy private publishers books, without even verifying the quality, volume and other contents of the books. Moreover, when the 2014 circular itself enables the CBSE schools to purchase books both from NCERT and private publishers, the present impugned order, without giving details, cannot be passed. In view of that there shall be an order of interim stay as prayed for.” The judge also held that the circular issued on April 6, 2017 is in contrast to the circular dated February 6, 2014, which is being followed by the schools. However, it is open to the CBSE to conduct an enquiry and find out the books which are costly, voluminous, unscientifically designed and not fit for school curriculum, published by the private publishers and direct the schools not to buy the books from next year onwards. In the middle of the year, the CBSE cannot issue a circular prohibiting usage of private publishers’ books, he added. The Association of Managements of Private Schools (CBSE) had moved the plea by filing a single writ petition. However, the judge on noting that though the association is entitled to maintain a single writ petition, said the association has got 287 schools as members and filing a single writ petition, all the schools are going to be benefited. As it is for an independent cause, by filing a single writ petition and by paying single court fee, the petitioner cannot get orders, the judge said and directed them to pay Rs 1,000 for each member amounting to Rs 2.87 lakh within a week, failing which, this court will pass appropriate orders.

The Madras High Court has been moved seeking to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired High Court judge with officials drawn from the CBI and other departments to eradicate sale of banned items like gutkha and pan masala. The plea moved by DMK MLA J Anbazhagan, which came up before the first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, was adjourned to Monday after a brief hearing. Anbazhagan in his plea had submitted that the unholy nexus between manufacturers of chewable tobacco, top police officials, bureaucrats and ministers has turned Tamil Nadu into a breeding place for the manufacture and sale of such banned items. He further submitted that gutkha has been declared a food item by various court orders. Based on this, the sale of gutkha and pan masala is now prohibited under Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011. But not withstanding this, even though the Chief Minister made a statement on the floor of the Assembly on May 8, 2013, that sale of gutkha will be banned, it took about two years for the state to bring in a formal gazette notification to ban the same.

The Madras High Court, which had initially stayed the indiscriminate removal of Prosopis juliflora (seemai karuvelam), has modified its order and instead allowed for the removal of Karuvelam trees across the water bodies in the state in a phased manner.

A full bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice M Sundar and Justice M M Sundresh on Friday said, “The authorities with the help of a Committee and other experts should identify the areas where removal process should be mechanical and where it should be manual. Along with this, appropriate land management standards shall also be designed to control the spread of karuvelamaram.” The bench also directed the state to evolve a programme for planting alternative spices on the land cleared of karuvelam trees. Earlier, when the bench heard the matter, it was made known that there failed to exist an inconclusive study on the ill-effects of karuvelam trees. It was pointed out that most of the studies pertained to such growth of karuvelam abroad and that the same study would not apply here since it ought to be site specific. It was also pointed out that it would take at least 20 years to make that study. But though there were both positive and negative aspects attached to karuvelam, one aspect that stood out was that it greatly depleted ground water. The bench, on directing the submission of the action taken report within eight weeks, posted the case for further hearing to October 13.