Delhi HC: Motor accident claim tribunal should not deduct money received by claimant from insurance policy taken by him or his employer

As held by the House of Lords in Parry v. Cleaver MANU/UKHL/0008/1969 : 1970 AC 1 the insurance amount is the fruit of premium paid in the past, pension is the fruit of services already rendered and the wrongdoer should not be given benefit of the same by deducting it from the damages assessed.

{Para 15}

16. Deduction can be ordered only where the tortfeasor satisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

50. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mannat Johal, MANU/SC/0589/2019 : 2019:INSC:561 : (2019) 15 SCC 260, the Supreme Court was considering whether the ex-gratia payment received from the employer of the deceased, being one year's gross salary, which was not shown to be under any Rules or Services and overall continuous assistance, can be set off against the compensation payable under the Act. The Court held that the same cannot be deducted.

51. From the above, it is apparent that compensation paid to the claimant is for the wrongful death of her son in the accident. The tortfeasor, who is primarily liable to pay such compensation, cannot claim a benefit in reduction of compensation payable by such tortfeasor, only because the deceased had, himself or through his employer, made an arrangement for providing a security to his legal heirs in case of any unforeseen happening, like an accident. Merely because the deceased himself did not pay the premium, in my opinion, is also not a relevant circumstance. Though such a premium is paid by the employer of the deceased, it is against the service that was being discharged by the deceased in his employment. How the employer frames the pay package to its employees is a matter between the employer and the employee, however, one thing is certain that even if the premium is paid by the employer, it is paid because of the relationship between the employer and the employee and for reason of such employment, it is not for the benefit of the tortfeasor.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

MAC. APP. 160/2019 and CM Appl. 4451/2019

Decided On: 09.01.2024

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanchan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Chawla, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/0154/2024.

Print Page

What is distinction between reasons of arrest and “grounds of arrest”?

So far as ground being communicated through the

remand application is concerned, the law in this regard is now

well settled. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prabir

Purkayastha V/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934

 has elaborately  considered this issue and in para 49 of the said decision, the distinction between the “reasons of arrest” and “grounds of arrest” have been culled out, which reads thus :

“49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that

there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons

for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for

arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely

formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person

from committing any further offence; for proper

investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused

person from causing the evidence of the offence to

disappear or tempering with such evidence in any

manner; to prevent the arrested person for making

inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the

Investigating Offcer. These reasons would commonly

apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime

whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to

contain all such details in hand of the Investigating

Offcer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.

Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in

writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic

facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide

him an opportunity of defending himself against

custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of

arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and

cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are

general in nature.”

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.17029 OF 2024

Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &

 MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

 DATED : 23rd OCTOBER, 2024

Order : (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.):-

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Prabir Purkayastha Case: Legal mandate for disclosing arrest grounds to PMLA/UAPA accused strengthened

 We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the Accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. {Para 46}

47. Now, coming to the aspect as to whether the grounds of arrest were actually conveyed to the Appellant in writing before he was remanded to the custody of the Investigating Officer.

48. We have carefully perused the arrest memo(Annexure P-7) and find that the same nowhere conveys the grounds on which the Accused was being arrested. The arrest memo is simply a proforma indicating the formal 'reasons' for which the Accused was being arrested.

49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'. The 'reasons for arrest' as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the Accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the Accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the 'grounds of arrest' would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the Accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested Accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the 'grounds of arrest' would invariably be personal to the Accused and cannot be equated with the 'reasons of arrest' which are general in nature.

50. From the detailed analysis made above, there is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that the copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the Accused Appellant or his counsel before passing of the order of remand dated 4th October, 2023 which vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the Appellant.

51. As a result, the Appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody by applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal(supra).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2577 of 2024.

Decided On: 15.05.2024

Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of DELHI)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0435/2024.

Print Page

Bombay HC declares arrest illegal as grounds of arrest were communicated to accused’s wife but not to the accused

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as the learned APP for the State and after going through

the reply affidavit and the documents annexed with the reply

affidavit, we do not find any grounds of arrest being

communicated to the petitioner. From the arrest panchanama

it is evident that, information is given to his wife on the cell

number provided by him, apart from which, there are no

grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest surrender form. 

{Para 6}

7. It is the requirement of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. that an

accused, who is being arrested without warrant to be forthwith

communicated about the full particulars of the offence for

which he is arrested or the other grounds for such arrest. The

petitioner has alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the

Cr.P.C. as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, by

relying upon law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard.

Therefore, it is a specific contention of the petitioner that,

there is a violation of his constitutional as well as statutory

rights.

8. After considering the submissions as well as the

documents produced on record, we do not find grounds of

arrest being communicated to the petitioner as contemplated

by Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and explained by this Court as well

as the Hon’ble Apex Court in its various judicial

pronouncements. We are satisfied that there is a flagrant

violation of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Article 22(1) of

the constitution of India, and since the grounds of arrest are

not communicated to the petitioner, making his arrest illegal.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.17029 OF 2024

Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &

 MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

 DATED : 23rd OCTOBER, 2024

Order : (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.):-

Print Page