Tag: Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

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...
Read More
Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's finding that the death was not a direct consequence of the motor accident injuries. The legal requirement of establishing a direct causal nexus between the accident and the death was not satisfied, as the medical evidence indicated the fatality was a possible after-effect of the surgery and the victim's pre-existing conditions, not the injuries themselves. Facts Of The Case: On April 29, 2006, an Excise Guard died following injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The accident occurred when the motorcycle he was riding collided with another motorcycle. He was initially hospitalized from April 29 to May 3, 2006, for injuries including a compound fracture of multiple metatarsals in his right foot and a fracture in his l...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate “Just Compensation” for Accident Deaths
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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...
Read More
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...
Read More