Why Is Monetary Compensation In Tort

2718 Words11 Pages
CASE COMMENT ON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ANR. VS SMT. SUDESH CHABRA & ORS. SUBJECT: TORTS SUBMITTED TO: NEHA PATHAKJI SUBMITTED BY: AISHWARYA RAJ BA, LLB (Hons.) IST SEMESTER ROLL NUMBER: 66 Table of Contents Chapter 1 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Legal Principles 3 Chapter 2 6 2.1 Background 6 Chapter 3 7 3.1 Facts of the Case 7 Chapter 4 8 4.1 Judgement 8 Chapter 5 10 5.1 Analysis 10 Chapter 6 11 6.1 Conclusion 11 Chapter 1 1.1 Introduction The concept of Compensation in torts arose out of the need for a substitute for revenge, wherein individuals were given the legal right to demand monetary compensation or damages from the person who had injured them, regardless of whether or not they were at any fault. The early common…show more content…
Tort law in India has been in existence since before independence, albeit with a scope much narrower than the present English law version. According to P. Sen, ‘Jimha’ in Sanskrit refers to a person being tortious of fraudulent conduct, when used in the context of Hindu law. However, the emphasis then was laid on punishment for crimes rather than compensation for wrongs. There lies the biggest difference between Hindu the tort law and the present tort law derived from English tort law, which itself originates from Common…show more content…
It describes a situation when someone accidently does something wrong, which causes someone else to get hurt. A person can be held liable for any damages they cause through their careless (or "negligent") behaviour. It can be as simple as forgetting to lock your front gate and letting your dog run free and attack someone. Or, it could be causing be a much more complicated series of events to unfold. In the context of motor vehicle accidents, it is even more difficult to define what exactly constitutes as negligence and what does not. This is proven by the above case when the appeals filed before the court all accuse the other party of being negligent whether or not there was any act that is contended as principally careless. In the given case, Sudesh Chabra, the wife of the deceased victim of the accident, Mahesh Chabra, claims compensation from the parties involved in the accident; that is, from the owner and driver of the bus and the stationary trailer. In the end, it is the driver of the wrongly parked trailer that is held liable to pay compensation to all the victims injured and deceased in the accident due to his carelessness and negligence in parking a car on the road without providing enough barriers or warning to oncoming

More about Why Is Monetary Compensation In Tort

Open Document