Category: Accident

As a result of accident, appellant suffered 26% disability of right lower limb, 25% disability due to urethral injury and 38% disability to whole body – Even though disability suffered by appellant is not 100%, his working capacity has been reduced to zero – Competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to victim of accident – Amount of compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,37,640/-.

  (2012) ACJ 191 : (2011) 13 JT 205 : (2012) 1 RCR(Civil) 509 : (2011) 12 SCALE 658 : (2012) 1 TAC 376 : (2012) 1 UJ 89 SUPREME…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 95(2)(b) – Statutory liability of insurer – Scope of – The insured vehicle allowed to carry six passenger, the maximum liability of insurer is at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per passenger subject to total liability of Rs. 20,000/-. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 110-B – Compensation – Considerations for determination of – Necessity to balance loss of future pecuniary benefit which could have accrued to the claimant – Decision partly on conjectures – Permissibility.

  (1971) ACJ 206 : AIR 1971 SC 1624 : (1971) 1 SCC 785 : (1971) SCR 20 Supp : (1971) 3 UJ 489 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SHEIKHUPURA TRANSPORT…

The application for condonation of delay was rejected by Single Judge of the High Court. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the application with the direction to deposit the claim amount and case remitted to the High Court. On remand no notice shall be issued to the claimants. The claimants shall appropriate the amount deposited by the appellant

  (2000) ACJ 1037 : (2000) 7 JT 575 : (2000) 9 SCC 218 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., JODHPUR — Appellant Vs. BHAGU DEVI AND OTHERS…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166—Accident—License—Photocopy of license was marked as exhibit-Once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance company had no right to raise any objections about the admissibility and manner of proving the license at a later stage.

2016(5) Law Herald (P&H) 3988 (SC) : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1897 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chalameswar  The Hon’ble Mr, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, 140 and 141—Accident—Compensation—In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child’s life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parent’s claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2874 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal No. 2479…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.