Tag: Personal Injury Law

Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts
20Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts

The Supreme Court held that the application of a "split multiplier" in motor accident compensation cases is impermissible. Relying on the structured formula from Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the Court ruled that compensation must be calculated using a single multiplier based solely on the victim's age, as superannuation does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a deviation from this settled method. Facts Of The Case: On 3rd August 2012, T.I. Krishnan, aged 51, died in a road accident on the Pala-Thodupuzha Road when his car was hit by a rashly driven bus. His surviving family—his wife and children—filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pala, seeking compensation. The Tribunal, in April 2014, awarded approximately ₹44 lakhs, determining...
Read More
Just Compensation Explained: Supreme Court Raises MACT Award from Rs 30 Lakh to Rs 85 Lakh
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Just Compensation Explained: Supreme Court Raises MACT Award from Rs 30 Lakh to Rs 85 Lakh

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation by applying established principles under the Motor Vehicles Act. It awarded amounts under non-pecuniary heads like marriage prospects and pain & suffering, and granted attendant charges for two attendants, citing precedents to ensure just and equitable restitution for the claimant's 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: The claimant-appellant, Reshma, aged 24, suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident on February 23, 2015, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was duly insured. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded compensation of ₹30,24,800, assessing her income at ₹10,000 per month and her disability at 100%. Dissatisfied, she appealed to the High Court, which enhanced the total ...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Income for Accident Claim Not Capped by Workmen’s Compensation Act
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Income for Accident Claim Not Capped by Workmen’s Compensation Act

The Supreme Court held that in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal must assess compensation based on the Act's principles. It is impermissible to apply the income ceiling from the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, once the claimant has elected the remedy under the M.V. Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a 23-year-old lorry loader, suffered grievous injuries in a vehicular accident on 1st December 2015, which resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal, assessing his monthly income at Rs. 9,000, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 19,35,400, which included a significant component for future loss of income. On appeal by ...
Read More
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...
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
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