Disability Rights - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher

25Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher

The Supreme Court modified the contributory negligence apportionment to 20% on the claimant, 50% on the car driver, and 30% on the bus driver. It enhanced compensation by revising the notional income calculation for an engineering student and reinstated attendant charges, emphasizing just compensation for 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: On January 7, 2017, the appellant, a 20-year-old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle with a friend on the pillion. A car ahead, driven by respondent no. 2, suddenly applied its brakes on the highway because the driver's pregnant wife felt a vomiting sensation. This caused the appellant to collide with the rear of the car and fall onto the road. Subsequently, a bus, insured by respondent no. 1, which was coming from behind, ran over the appell...

Supreme Court Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice

The Supreme Court upheld the rights of prisoners with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and Article 21 of the Constitution. It mandated accessible prison infrastructure, reasonable accommodations, and healthcare for disabled inmates, while emphasizing state accountability under UNCRPD obligations. The Court also reinforced compensation for rights violations and directed systemic reforms, including training for prison staff and periodic audits to ensure compliance with disability-inclusive standards. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, L. Muruganantham, a physically challenged advocate suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy (80% disability) and autism, was falsely implicated in a criminal case at the behest of his paternal uncle. Based on a fa...

Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”

The Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies cannot be compelled to provide non-monetary relief like prosthetic limbs or ongoing medical supervision to accident victims. Emphasizing indemnity principles, the Court held compensation must be monetary, calculating ₹12 lakh for future prosthetic/wheelchair needs. It overturned the High Court's directive for in-kind support, reaffirming insurers' liability is limited to pecuniary compensation under motor accident laws. The judgment clarifies that "just compensation" under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act excludes imposing perpetual welfare obligations on insurers. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident on 21.12.2008, where respondent Suraj Kumar, a 22-year-old tempo cleaner, suffered severe injuries...