Tag: Rash and Negligent Driving

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
Fraud in Insurance Policy: Supreme Court’s Balanced Approach in Accident Compensation Case
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Fraud in Insurance Policy: Supreme Court’s Balanced Approach in Accident Compensation Case

The Supreme Court upheld the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the accident claimants. However, upon finding the insurance policy was fraudulently manipulated and not valid on the accident date, the Court granted the insurer the right to recover 50% of the compensation amount from the vehicle owner and driver. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a fatal road accident on June 21, 2006, which resulted in the death of a 21-year-old security guard, Hem Singh Mehta. The accident occurred when a truck, driven rashly and negligently, hit the deceased while he was waiting for a bus. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Haldwani. The Tribunal, after establishing that the accident was caused by the truck driver's negl...
Read More
Supreme Court Boosts Accident Compensation, Rejects “Minimum Wage” for Student
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Boosts Accident Compensation, Rejects “Minimum Wage” for Student

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation by revising the income assessment from minimum wages to a prospective income of an accountant, factoring in future prospects as per Pranay Sethi. It also awarded additional future medical expenses, upholding the insurer's liability for verified costs incurred due to the victim's paraplegia. Facts Of The Case: On 24th October 2001, a 20-year-old man, Sharad Singh, was travelling pillion on a motorcycle when it was hit from behind by a rashly and negligently driven car. The impact caused him to fall onto the road, and he was subsequently run over by the same car. The accident resulted in a C4-5 fracture, rendering him a paraplegic with 100% disability, as certified by AIIMS, and confined him to a bed-ridden state until his death in 2021. The offendin...
Read More
Tribunal’s Income Assessment Upheld: Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Injury Claim Case
22Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tribunal’s Income Assessment Upheld: Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Injury Claim Case

The Supreme Court partially restored the Tribunal's compensation award, upholding the adopted monthly income and modifying attendant charges. It clarified that in the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimant, enhancement beyond the Tribunal's award or addition of future prospects cannot be claimed against the insurer's appeal. Facts Of The Case: On January 5, 2013, the appellant, Ramar, was standing by the side of the road when a rashly and negligently driven lorry hit him. The accident resulted in grievous injuries, leading to the amputation of his right leg from the thigh and a crush injury to his left leg, which paralyzed it. Medical evidence presented before the Tribunal, including the testimony of treating doctors and hospital records, proved the nature of the injuries and as...
Read More
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...
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
Supreme Court Reinstates Separate Compensation for “Loss of Enjoyment of Life” in Motor Accident Cases
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Separate Compensation for “Loss of Enjoyment of Life” in Motor Accident Cases

The Supreme Court held that compensation for permanent disability is a distinct head from loss of income and cannot be denied merely because the latter is awarded. It further ruled that future medical and attendant charges must account for the victim's full life expectancy, not a restricted period. The Court also reinstated compensation for loss of enjoyment of life and family's pain and suffering, emphasizing these are legitimate and independent heads of claim. Facts Of The Case: On July 3, 2011, the appellant, Kavin, a 21-year-old arts student, was travelling as a passenger in an Omni bus from Coimbatore to Chennai. At around 10:15 PM, the bus, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed against a tamarind tree on the left side of the road. The accident resulted in grievous inj...
Read More
Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds LMV License Validity for Commercial Vehicles
14Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Upholds LMV License Validity for Commercial Vehicles

The Supreme Court held that a driver with a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license can operate a commercial vehicle (gross weight ≤7500 kg) without additional endorsement, affirming Mukund Dewangan. However, the Insurance Company was liable under the "Pay and Recover" principle despite the "Liability Only Policy" excluding gratuitous passengers, citing Baljit Kaur and Pranay Sethi. Compensation was enhanced by 10% under conventional heads. Facts Of The Case: On 27th November 2013, Gokul Prasad, a 32-year-old cloth seller, died in an accident involving a TATA 407 truck (registration No. M.P. 53G/0386) near Kurwaiha Ghati Road. The truck, driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 3, was returning from a weekly market. The deceased’s legal representatives (Appellants) filed a claim under S...
Read More