Tag: Judicial Decision

Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the lower courts. The ruling signifies that the appellants' legal challenge against the insurance company's position was not tenable in law. The court found no merit to interfere, allowing the impugned judgment and the terms of the insurance policy to stand. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by Vanita and others, likely the legal heirs of a deceased, seeking compensation under a motor accident claim. The accident presumably involved a vehicle insured with M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially ruled in the case, and its decision was subsequently challenged in a High Court. It appears that the claimants' appeal was unsuccessful in the Hig...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death

The Supreme Court clarified that in claims under Section 166 of the MV Act, a notional income for a deceased child need not be limited to the figures in Schedule II (for Section 163-A claims). It reinstated the Tribunal's calculation, confirming no deduction for personal expenses is required in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a motor accident involving a 10-year-old boy who was fatally struck by a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation while he was cycling to school. The parents of the deceased child filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, acknowledging the undisputed negligence of the bus driver, awarded a total compensation of ₹8,55,000. This calculation was based on attributing a notional monthly...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction, Rules Victim’s Testimony Alone Is Enough
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction, Rules Victim’s Testimony Alone Is Enough

The Supreme Court upheld that a rape conviction can be based solely on the sole, credible testimony of the prosecutrix. Corroboration through medical evidence is not a legal necessity. The absence of injuries does not disprove the offense, especially when the victim's account is consistent and inspires confidence. Facts Of The Case: On April 3, 2018, at approximately noon, a 15-year-old victim and her 11-year-old brother were alone at their home in Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, as their parents had gone to a nearby village to attend a funeral. The appellant-accused, Deepak Kumar Sahu, who was known to the family and lived in the neighbourhood, entered the house. Finding the victim alone, he sent her younger brother away to buy chewing tobacco. Once the brother left, the accused forced the v...
Read More
Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties
23Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but modified the sentence. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, it held that the enhanced punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, introduced by the 2019 amendment, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed prior to its enactment. Facts Of The Case: On May 20, 2019, the appellant, Saturam Mandavi, was accused of luring a five-year-old girl to his house and raping her while her parents were away attending a marriage ceremony in the village. The victim's mother, upon returning and being unable to locate her daughter, confronted the appellant at his house, after which he fled. An FIR was subsequently registered against him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S...
Read More