MACT - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Boosts Compensation: Sets Minimum Income for Accident Victims

In a significant ruling on motor accident claims, the Supreme Court reinforced the principles from Pranay Sethi and Somwati. The Court established that the income of a deceased, even if not fully substantiated, cannot be assessed lower than the notional income of an unskilled labourer, with due consideration for annual increments. It upheld the application of standard multipliers, future prospects, and clarified that loss of consortium is payable to spouses, children, and dependent parents. Facts Of The Case: In a tragic accident on July 25, 2010, four friends from Bijapur on a pilgrimage to Shirdi lost their lives when their car was involved in a head-on collision with a rashly and negligently driven goods lorry on NH-13. The case concerns one of the deceased, a qualified pharmacist, wh...

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation: Income Tax Returns Must Be Considered for Accident Claims

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation: Income Tax Returns Must Be Considered for Accident Claims

The Supreme Court held that for motor accident compensation, the functional disability affecting earning capacity, not just medical disability, is determinative. Income tax returns must be reasonably considered unless proven fabricated. Just compensation includes actual medical expenses proven by vouchers and future medical needs, but future prospects are not awarded when the claimant can continue earning post-disability. Facts Of The Case: On April 9, 2007, the appellant, Anoop Maheshwari, was riding his motorbike when it was hit by a rashly and negligently driven truck. The accident resulted in Maheshwari suffering a severe injury, specifically a hemipelvectomy, which is the amputation of one leg along with a portion of the pelvic bone. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal established t...

Supreme Court: Insurance Can’t Deny Claim Based on Policy Clause When Vehicle Was Properly Registered & Permitted

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Insurance Can’t Deny Claim Based on Policy Clause When Vehicle Was Properly Registered & Permitted

Supreme Court Judgment Based on the policy's "Limitation as to Use" clause, the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance company cannot deny liability for a utility vehicle registered and permitted as a "contract carriage" to carry passengers. The clause applies only to goods carriages, and the insurer, having issued the policy with full knowledge of the vehicle's registration and permit, is bound to indemnify the owner for third-party claims. The "pay and recover" order was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a tragic accident involving a utility vehicle, which led to the filing of five separate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) by the legal representatives of the deceased. The owner of the vehicle, Shyam Lal, was the appellant b...

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...

Supreme Court Says No :Can You Change Your Mind After Cashing the Cheque?

9Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says No :Can You Change Your Mind After Cashing the Cheque?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of a time-barred review petition. It affirmed the legal principle that a party cannot "approbate and reprobate"—they cannot accept a benefit under an order and later challenge it. A party who voluntarily accepts compensation with full knowledge is bound by their conduct and cannot subsequently resile from it. Facts Of The Case: In a motor accident claim case concerning the death of Priyank Chand, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of approximately Rs. 11.82 lakh to his legal heirs: his mother (Urmila Chand, the appellant), his wife (Sonu Chand), and his two minor children. Upon a joint application filed by all claimants, including Urmila, the Tribunal passed a disbursement order on 21.04.2015. As...

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...

Not Just Salaried: Supreme Court Rules Self-Employed Accident Victims Get Future Income Rise

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Not Just Salaried: Supreme Court Rules Self-Employed Accident Victims Get Future Income Rise

The Supreme Court held that self-employed claimants are entitled to future prospects, affirming the principles in Santosh Devi and Pranay Sethi. It further ruled that uncontroverted medical evidence on disability must be accepted in its entirety, and the percentage of disability assessed by the treating doctor cannot be arbitrarily reduced by the Tribunal or High Court without reasoning. Facts Of The Case: On November 19, 2016, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the appellant, Lokesh B, a 38-year-old tailor, was driving his Omni car on the Peenya flyover in Bengaluru. His vehicle collided with a stationary lorry that was allegedly parked in the middle of the flyover without any indicators or reflective warnings. As a result of the collision, Lokesh sustained grievous injuries, including skull f...

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...