#compensation

The Supreme Court awarded ₹6 lakh compensation for six years of wrongful undertrial custody in a kidnapping-murder case, holding that a fundamentally defective investigation - lacking a Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence, a Section 27 statement for recoveries, and relying on unclear CCTV footage - violated the accused's Article 21 rights. The ruling underscores the state's liability when investigative failures deprive a person of liberty.

The Bombay High Court held that serving a Section 41A CrPC notice after arrest renders the arrest illegal, exposing police manipulation of records and collusion with a developer to frame the petitioner. The court awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation, ordered the investigating Sub-Inspector's suspension, and referred the Magistrate to the Administrative Committee for judicial oversight failures.

The West Bengal State Consumer Commission held that a developer cannot deliver possession without a valid occupancy certificate, awarding the complainant ₹5 lakh compensation and ₹50,000 costs, and ordering delivery of the flat with the certificate within six weeks. The ruling safeguards homebuyers from premature possession and underscores the developer’s obligation to secure statutory clearances before handing over property.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC for pain and suffering cannot be set off against MACT awards for loss of dependency, as they compensate different heads of loss. It directed that the criminal compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit pending the outcome of the criminal appeal, benefitting victims' families by preserving both recoveries.

The SC held that Article 22(1) breach needs written grounds & judicial sanction for re-arrest, while Article 22(2) breach draws State compensation. Victims need not sue officials; State liable and police must follow safeguards before re-detention.

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that, absent local sale transactions, compensation under Section 26(b) of the 2013 Act must be based on sale deeds from the nearest adjoining village. It affirmed Rs. 99,300 per decimal compensation using a verified deed from Kankebar village, guiding future land acquisition assessments.

The Gujarat High Court held that an electricity distribution licensee remains strictly liable for electrocution deaths caused by live wires, even when the consumer illegally taps the line. The ruling places primary responsibility on the supplier for the escape of dangerous energy, ensuring victims' families can claim compensation directly from the board irrespective of the consumer's power theft.

Demotion after maternity leave violates Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, the Delhi High Court found. It reinstated the employee as senior manager, awarded Rs 10 lakh for mental harassment, and directed the Union to issue guidelines for private employers. The ruling expands maternity protection to post-leave career progression for women workers.

The Gujarat High Court ruled that a District Valuation Committee report is valid evidence for compensation when sale deeds are missing, and upheld the 60 % market-value deduction with a 10 % annual escalation. This sets a clear valuation method for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, affecting both landowners and acquiring authorities.

The Gauhati HC ordered regularisation of Assam Rifles-occupied land and payment of rent arrears and compensation. The ruling benefits the petitioners and landowners, stating that military land occupations must be regularised and compensated.

Jharkhand High Court affirmed that the claimant is entitled to a loss-of-dependency award calculated on a 17-year multiplier, relying on the deceased’s post-mortem income-tax returns. The ruling clarifies that tax returns can be admitted as proof of earnings for dependency calculations under the Motor Vehicles Act, raising the compensation ceiling for families of road-accident victims.

The Gujarat High Court held that interest on excess compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act accrues from the date of the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award (or permanent possession), not from the date of temporary possession. This limits claimants' interest entitlement and clarifies future compensation calculations in land-acquisition cases.

The Jharkhand HC said an insurer must prove any licence breach under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It raised the claim award to Rs 16.22 million with 6 % interest, stressing the duty to pay just compensation.

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a claimant’s functional disability cannot be equated with the percentage of medical disability, mandating a distinct assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the compensation award was raised to Rs 14.10 lakhs and a belated cross-objection was allowed, setting a precedent for future motor-accident claims.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation for an unlawful End-of-Life Vehicle seizure cannot be claimed via a writ petition under Article 226 and must be pursued in a civil suit. This narrows writ jurisdiction and directs vehicle owners to ordinary civil remedies under the Motor Vehicle (Registration and Functions of Vehicle Scrapping Facility) Rules, 2021.