Supreme Court of India Judgements

467720 Judgements hosted as on 16/04/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Accident

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Claim Petitions — Standard of Proof — In motor accident claim proceedings, the standard of proof required to establish the involvement of a vehicle and negligence is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases

Apr 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUNCHAM LAVANYA AND OTHERS Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Accident

The Supreme Court emphasized that the goal is to ensure just and fair compensation, even if it exceeds the claimed amount. It recalculated the compensation, considering the claimant’s monthly income, future prospects, 40% permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 17,82,825, modifying the awards of the MACT and High Court. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. This decision underscores the principle of providing fair compensation to accident victims based on comprehensive assessment of their losses and suffering.

Feb 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 165 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARE KRUSHNA MAHANTA Vs. HIMADARI SAHU AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Accident

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…

You missed

Bail Declined

Cancellation of Bail — Factors for Consideration — Child Trafficking — Appeals preferred by victims (kith and kin of trafficked children) assailing High Court orders granting bail to accused involved in a large-scale, organized, interstate child trafficking racket — The offences alleged involve kidnapping, buying, and selling of minor children primarily from impoverished backgrounds, punishable under Ss. 363, 311 & 370(5) IPC —High Court’s approach found to be callous, overlooking critical aspects including the organized nature of the crime and the subsequent absconding of several accused post-bail, thereby jeopardizing the trial.

Apr 16, 2025 sclaw
Specific Performance

A buyer’s continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of an Agreement to Sell, a prerequisite for seeking specific performance, is negated by their conduct of accepting and encashing a substantial portion of the refunded earnest money/advance

Apr 15, 2025 sclaw
Service

The 18-month Diploma in Elementary Education (D. El. Ed.) programme conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) through Open Distance Learning (ODL) mode, pursuant to the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017, was a specific, one-time measure necessitated by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017

Apr 15, 2025 sclaw
I B C Limitation

The statutory limitation period for filing an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is thirty days, commencing from the date of pronouncement of the order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) — The NCLAT possesses discretion to condone delay for a further period not exceeding fifteen days, upon satisfaction of sufficient cause

Apr 14, 2025 sclaw