Section 166 - The Legal Chamber

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...

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...

Supreme Court Ruling: Family of US-Based Driver Wins Enhanced Compensation

The Supreme Court, applying the principles established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, held that a self-employed person, even one working abroad, is entitled to an addition of 40% of their established income towards future prospects when computing compensation in motor accident claims. The Court enhanced the compensation by recalculating the loss of dependency and conventional heads as per the standardized formula mandated by the Constitution Bench. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident that occurred on 31st August 2007 at approximately 3:00 a.m. at Nirmal Kutia Chowk, Karnal. The deceased, Rajinder Singh Mihnas, a 31-year-old U.S. national, was travelling in a car from Delhi to Hoshiarpur when it was struck by a rashly and negligently driven Swaraj Mazd...