Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Accident

Accident

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

2026 INSC 498 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DOLLY SATISH GANDHI AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Accident

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

2026 INSC 477 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHINDER KAUR (D) THROUGH L.R. Vs. BRIJ LAL ARORA AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. )…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs.

Apr 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 396 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAHLAD SAHAI Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.4642…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs.

Apr 22, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 396 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAHLAD SAHAI Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.4642…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 2(30), 173, 174 — Compensation — Liability for accident during requisition of vehicle — Bus owned by a school was requisitioned by the appellant (District Magistrate) for election purposes — Accident occurred while the bus was under the control of the appellant — Issue of shifting of liability from the insurance company to the requisitioning authority — Held, when a public authority requisitions a privately owned vehicle for public purposes, the nature of possession and control changes entirely, and the requisitioning authority assumes responsibility for consequences arising from such compelled use — The owner is divested of custody and decision-making power, and the vehicle is placed at the disposal of the State for governmental functions — During this period, the owner neither directs its use nor derives any benefit from it — It only stands to reason that in such circumstances, if an untoward incident occurs, responsibility would properly to rest with the requisitioning authority and not with the insurer engaged by the owner for ordinary, private or commercial use — The requisitioning authority, by assuming control and deploying the vehicle for its own purposes, assumes with that control the corresponding responsibility — Appeal dismissed.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 279 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND COLLECTOR, GWALIOR, M.P. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Assessment of compensation — Functional disability vs — Physical disability — High Court reduced functional disability from 63% assessed by Medical Board to 30% without providing cogent reasons, constituting an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of legal principles — Such reduction, without convincing evidence impeaching medical certificates and without assigning adequate reasons, was unjustified — Supreme Court, to do complete justice and avoid further delay, examined functional disability on merits, considering medical and neuropsychological reports indicating severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and orthopedic limitations — Held, functional disability for calculating loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 100% given the claimant’s managerial role and the profound impact of injuries on his cognitive and functional abilities — Compensation recalculated accordingly, enhancing the award from Rs — 35,61,000/- to Rs — 97,73,011/-.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 260 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. HALLE Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Deduction of group insurance benefits — Whether amounts received by claimants under employer-provided group insurance or other contractual/social security benefits can be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Held, such benefits arise from independent contractual relationships and lack nexus with statutory compensation for death in a motor vehicle accident — Principle of balancing loss and gain cannot diminish statutory entitlement to just compensation — High Court rightly set aside deductions made by the Tribunal towards group insurance amounts.

Mar 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 241 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC Vs. P. CHANDRAMOULI AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deduction of amounts received under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Supreme Court clarifies that only benefits directly replacing lost income are deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. Other benefits, such as pensions or life insurance, remain unaffected.

Feb 28, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 188 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KANIKA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…

Accident

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

2025 INSC 1425 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SITHARA N.S. AND OTHERS Vs. SAI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

You missed

Constitution

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
Cr P C

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
C P C

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