May 25, 2026 12:53 pm

Accident—Multiplier—Deceased aged 37 years—Multiplier of 12 held to be appropriate.

Bysclaw

Apr 8, 2017

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim for compensation — Deduction of Mediclaim benefits — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Award of compensation — Mediclaim policy is a contract of insurance purchased by an individual to cover uncertainties of life, with no specific accidental coverage — Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory remedy arising from negligence and injury — Mediclaim reimbursement is a contractual benefit independent of the Motor Vehicles Act claim — Deduction of Mediclaim benefits would denude claimant of benefits from premiums paid and unduly benefit insurer of offending vehicle — Compensation awarded under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to put the injured in the position as if the accident had not occurred — Medical expenses claimed and paid under Mediclaim are not deductible from compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act — These two stand on different footing; one is statutory, the other is contractual.

May 17, 2026 sclaw

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Enhancement — Deceased was an engineering student with good academic record and potential future earnings — High Court enhanced compensation but it was found to be on the lower side — The Supreme Court assessed the monthly income at Rs. 12,000/-, added 40% for future prospects, deducted half for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 18 — Compensation under conventional heads was also enhanced — The motorcycle damage was awarded as per the surveyor’s report.

May 14, 2026 sclaw

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 and 173 — Compensation calculation — Notional income for a 14-year-old claimant with 100% permanent disability assessed at Rs. 35,800/- per month, leading to a total loss of income of Rs. 3,17,53,920/- after applying multiplier and future prospects.

May 12, 2026 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw

Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw