judicial restoration - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules :Procedural Lapses Can’t Be A Safe Haven For Rapists

6Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :Procedural Lapses Can’t Be A Safe Haven For Rapists

The Supreme Court held that procedural irregularities, such as defective charge framing or improper joint trial under Section 223 CrPC, do not automatically vitiate the proceedings unless a failure of justice is proven. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies and procedural lapses should not be elevated to the level of reasonable doubt to acquit an accused, especially in heinous offences, if the core prosecution evidence remains credible and consistent. The conviction was restored as no prejudice was established. Facts Of The Case: In 2016, a few months after the Holi festival, the appellant's minor daughter began experiencing health issues. Her deteriorating condition led her mother to take her to a hospital in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, for treatment. On July 1, 2016, a medic...

Supreme Court Rules: Insurer Must Pay Full Claim If It Didn’t Plead ‘Limited Liability’ Earlier

The Supreme Court ruled that an insurer's contractual liability under a personal accident cover is distinct from its statutory third-party liability. The defense of "limited liability" must be specifically pleaded and proved before the Tribunal; it cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. The insurer was thus liable to pay the full compensation awarded. Facts Of The Case: The deceased, who was the brother of the car owner, was driving the vehicle when its right rear tyre suddenly burst. This caused the car to go out of control, topple, and resulted in a fatal head injury that led to his death. The car was also occupied by the owner, his wife, and the deceased's wife, all of whom sustained injuries. The claimants, the deceased's widow, minor children, and parents, filed for compensa...

Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”

The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s compensation award for the family of a deceased truck driver, rejecting the High Court’s reduction of income from ₹10,000 to ₹4,076 per month. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance, it upheld ₹10,000 as justified wages for 2014. The Court also affirmed loss of consortium for children and parents under Somwati v. New India Assurance, stressing equitable apportionment. The judgment reinforces fair compensation principles in motor accident claims, emphasizing statutory and precedential rights of dependents. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a fatal motor accident where a truck driver, aged 28, was hit and killed by another negligently driven truck while he was boarding his parked vehicle. The deceased’s legal representatives—his wido...