Supreme Court of India Judgements

46845 Judgements hosted as on 31/08/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Accident

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…

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.…

You missed

Electricity Act

Electricity Law — Regulatory Power — Balancing contractual obligations and public interest —directions for restoration of PBG, extension of timelines, and tariff renegotiation must be within the four corners of the contract.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 47 and 49 — Enforcement of Foreign Award — High Court found no grounds to refuse recognition of the award and held it enforceable, subject to RBI approval — Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion and directed execution proceedings to proceed.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw
POCSO

Goa Children’s Act, 2003 — Section 8(2) and Section 2(m) — Child Abuse — Conviction unsustainable — Accused allegedly casually hit injured child with own son’s school bag — No evidence of deliberate maltreatment, cruelty, exploitation or ill-treatment intended to cause harm — Act exceeded mere incidental quarrel — Medical examination could not rule out possibility of injury from fall — High Court also reduced sentence substantially — Held, conviction for child abuse not made out.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 201 – Conviction and sentence for rape and murder – Appeal against – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Testimony of prosecution witnesses contained contradictions and improbabilities – Suspicious conduct of accused attributed as improvement – Reliance on DNA reports found unjustified due to failure to establish sanctity and chain of custody of samples – Supplementary DNA report inadmissible as expert was not recalled and report not put to accused.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw