Accident Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

January 21, 2025 9:53 am

The primary issues revolved around whether the compensation awarded by the MACT and High Court was adequate, particularly under heads like loss of income, future medical expenses, and non-pecuniary damages – The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court’s correct adoption of the notional income and enhancement of loss of income but criticized its failure to adequately consider other compensation heads — The court emphasized the need to follow established guidelines for multipliers and future prospects additions, and highlighted the importance of considering doctors’ recommendations and the actual needs of the victim — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 48,00,000, matching the petitioner’s claimed amount.

Jan 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 29 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATUL TIWARI Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 162 — Scheme for golden hour — Obligation of Central Government — The court emphasizes the statutory obligation of the Central Government to create a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour as mandated by Section 162(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) — This obligation is not discretionary but a legal requirement.

Jan 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 45 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. RAJASEEKARAN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George…

Accident I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304A — Rash and Negligent Driving — The court found that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the death of one person and injuries to another — The prosecution presented evidence demonstrating that the accused’s vehicle hit the motorcycle from behind — This is corroborated by witness testimony and the fact that the motorcycle was dragged a considerable distance — The court dismissed the defence’s argument that the incident was due to contributory negligence, pointing out that the road was wide enough for the accused to avoid the collision and that there was no evidence of a sudden turn by the victim — The courts also noted the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation when questioned about the incriminating evidence — The fact that the victim suffered 19 wounds also supports the court’s conclusion that the accused’s driving was rash and negligent —The court rejected the petitioner’s plea for leniency due to his family circumstances, emphasizing that the accused’s actions caused a death — Based on the above points, the court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.

Dec 27, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 1038 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAMES Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2024…

Accident

Motor Accident Claims — The appellants, family members of the deceased claimed compensation for his death in a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the car driver — Whether the car driven by respondent no. 2 was involved in the accident and if the accident was due to the negligence of the car driver — The appellants argued that there was ample evidence showing the car’s involvement and that the lower courts misread the evidence — The respondents contended that the accident was due to the deceased’s negligence and that the car was not involved — The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ findings, holding that the car was involved in the accident and awarded compensation to the appellants — The Court found that the evidence, including witness testimonies and the condition of the car, supported the involvement of the car in the accident — The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, to conclude the car’s involvement — The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were awarded compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with interest.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 787 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAJEENA IKHBAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MINI BABU GEORGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant…

Accident

Motor Accident Claims — Accurate Disability assessment — Supreme Court addressed the issue of compensation for a motor accident victim who sustained injuries to both hands requiring surgery and resulting in permanent disability — The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) initially awarded Rs.5,38,872/- as compensation, considering a 25% disability — The insurance company appealed, and the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.4,74,072/-, adjusting the disability percentage to 20% — The Supreme Court upon reviewing the medical records and testimony of doctor, who certified a 50% disability, set aside the High Court’s judgment — It restored the Tribunal’s decision, which had assessed a 25% disability — The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the full compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal — The appeal was thus allowed, emphasizing the importance of accurate disability assessment in determining fair compensation for accident victims.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 598 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

Accident

Motor Accident Claims — Enhancement of Compensation — The claimant-appellant’s husband died in a motor accident involving an ambulance and a truck — The deceased was employed as a ‘Khalasi’ in the ambulance — The maintainability of the claim for compensation, the rash and negligent conduct of the truck driver, and the extent of compensation payable — The High Court awarded Rs. 8,30,000 as compensation, deducting Rs. 6,25,000 already paid by the employer — The Supreme Court modified the compensation to Rs. 10,06,900 with 7.5% interest — The appeal was allowed, and the compensation amount was modified.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 584 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROJALINI NAYAK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AJIT SAHOO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,…

Accident

Motor Accident Compensation — Contributory Negligence — The claimant and his wife were involved in a motorcycle accident with two tractors, resulting in the wife’s death and the claimant’s severe injuries — The main issues were rash and negligent driving, contributory negligence and insurance liability — The claimant argued for higher compensation due to the loss of income from their business and the misapplication of the multiplier by the Tribunal — The respondents contended that the claimant was also negligent and thus partly responsible for the accident — The Supreme Court revised the compensation to Rs. 11,25,000 from Rs. 1,01,250, acknowledging the error in the Tribunal’s application of the multiplier and contributory negligence — The Court found that the claimant’s act of overtaking was not rash or negligent and that the offending vehicle was driven negligently — The appeal was allowed, and the compensation was significantly increased, with the interest rate adjusted to 8%.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 585 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM LAL ANAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay…

Accident

Motor Accident Claims — Accurate Disability assessment — Supreme Court addressed the issue of compensation for a motor accident victim who sustained injuries to both hands requiring surgery and resulting in permanent disability — The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) initially awarded Rs.5,38,872/- as compensation, considering a 25% disability — The insurance company appealed, and the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.4,74,072/-, adjusting the disability percentage to 20% — The Supreme Court upon reviewing the medical records and testimony of doctor, who certified a 50% disability, set aside the High Court’s judgment — It restored the Tribunal’s decision, which had assessed a 25% disability — The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the full compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal — The appeal was thus allowed, emphasizing the importance of accurate disability assessment in determining fair compensation for accident victims.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 598 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

Accident

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Enhancement of compensation – Indigent person – Appellant, an indigent person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for Rs. 10 lakhs – The MACT awarded her Rs. 2,41,745 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization – The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat seeking enhanced compensation – The High Court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellant permission to file the appeal as an indigent person, stating that she had received compensation by the MACT and was therefore not indigent – The appellant argued that she was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment – The court held that the appellant was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The court granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person and requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment – The court relied on previous judgments to define the concept of an ‘indigent person’ and applied the principle that lack of monetary capability should not preclude a person from seeking justice – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 457 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA — Appellant Vs. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol,…

Accident

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Enhancement of compensation – Indigent person – Appellant, an indigent person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for Rs. 10 lakhs – The MACT awarded her Rs. 2,41,745 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization – The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat seeking enhanced compensation – The High Court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellant permission to file the appeal as an indigent person, stating that she had received compensation by the MACT and was therefore not indigent – The appellant argued that she was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment – The court held that the appellant was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The court granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person and requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment – The court relied on previous judgments to define the concept of an ‘indigent person’ and applied the principle that lack of monetary capability should not preclude a person from seeking justice – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person.

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 457 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA — Appellant Vs. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol,…

You missed

C P C

High Court cannot pass an interim order in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC without first formulating a substantial question of law

Jan 19, 2025 sclaw

Specific Relief Act

When a higher court’s decree is issued, the lower court’s decree merges into it, and any time stipulations in the lower court’s decree do not automatically revive upon the higher court’s judgment

Jan 19, 2025 sclaw

Service

Promotions based on merit-cum-seniority, suitability should be judged individually, not comparatively, and officers meeting the minimum criteria cannot be denied promotion based on a merit list

Jan 17, 2025 sclaw

Arbitration

A micro or small enterprise does not need to be registered under Section 8 of the MSMED Act to make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18

Jan 12, 2025 sclaw

Category: Accident

You missed