joint liability - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years

29Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Remission: “Family Prestige” Murder Qualifies for Early Release After 22 Years

The Supreme Court allowed a life convict's appeal for premature release, interpreting the 2010 remission guidelines. The Court held the offence, motivated by perceived family prestige, fell under Category 3(b) requiring 22 years of incarceration, not Category 4(d) requiring 24 years, and ordered the appellant's immediate release. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Anilkumar, along with a co-accused, was convicted for the premeditated murder of a man and the attempted murder of his friend. The prosecution's case was that the attack was motivated by the fact that the deceased was in a romantic relationship with the appellant's sister. The appellant perceived this relationship as spoiling his sister's life and tarnishing the family's prestige. Following his conviction, the appellant wa...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate “Just Compensation” for Accident Deaths

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that allowances forming part of a deceased's salary, if used for family support, must be included in income computation for motor accident compensation. It applies established principles from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi to include future prospects and awards consortium as per Magma General Insurance, ensuring just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Facts Of The Case: On February 16, 2009, Lokender Kumar died in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Santro car on the Sohna-Gurgaon Road. His widow and two minor children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Gurgaon, seeking Rs. 25 lakhs in compensation. The Tribunal, considering his basic salary of Rs. 3,665 per month and applying a multip...

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rules Under MV Act: Insurer Liable Despite Negligence Claims

The Supreme Court held that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proof of negligence is not required for claiming compensation, as the provision operates on a structured formula basis. The Court emphasized that compensation must be computed as per the Second Schedule of the Act, excluding non-scheduled heads like loss of love and affection. It ruled that the deceased, being a third party to the offending vehicle, entitled the claimants to compensation, payable jointly and severally by the insurer of the offending vehicle. The judgment clarified that Section 163A has an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act, ensuring expedited compensation without fault liability adjudication. Facts Of The Case: On the night of November 15, 2006, Surender Singh was driving a tr...