December 19, 2025 2:19 am

Accident–Compensation–Interest rate of 9% fixed by High Court does not warrant any interference.

Bysclaw

Feb 14, 2018

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 Petition — Standard of Proof — In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — However, claimants must establish three elements: (i) occurrence of accident; (ii) involvement of the specific offending vehicle; and (iii) rash and negligent act of the driver — Mere occurrence of the accident alone is insufficient if the involvement of the vehicle and negligence are not established. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 16)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation for Death of a Child — Calculation of Compensation — Deceased 14-year-old schoolboy — Principles adopted for calculating compensation for death of child — Notional monthly income adopted based on Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a Class B city (Rs. 5400/- per month) — Addition of 40% for future prospects — Multiplier of 15 adopted based on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan — Deduction of one-half for personal expenses — Statutory heads of compensation (loss of estate, funeral expenses) awarded at Rs. 15,000/- each — Loss of filial consortium awarded at Rs. 40,000/- per parent — Compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased child, who died a day after the accident, awarded at Rs. 25,000/- to inure to the benefit of legal heirs — Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,65,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Assessment of income of deceased — Standard of proof — Where claimants assert a high monthly income (Rs. 95,000/-) for the deceased (a transport contractor owning two trucks), which exceeds the taxable limit, failure to produce Income Tax Returns (ITR) is highly relevant and undermines the claim — The contention that high EMI payments (approx. Rs. 42,500/-) imply double the income is an unfounded assumption, amounting to mere surmises and conjectures. (Paras 3, 6)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw

Evidence Act I P C

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw