Category: Accident

(IPC) – Ss 279 and 304A – Causing death by negligence – driving the Scorpio in rash and negligent manner due to which one innocent person lost his life and two persons who were travelling in the ambulance sustained the injuries – Orders passed by the H C reducing the sentence while maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 304A of IPC from two years RI to eight months SI quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. DIL BAHADUR — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 844…

What may constitute an accident but it would not qualify as “accidental means”. (a) a fatal heart attack while dancing would be called “accidental” but would fail to attract insurance cover as not due to “accidental means”; (b) heart attack suffered as a result of over-exertion on being chased by a ferocious dog the death might attract the insurance cover as it was caused by “accidental means” – Insurance company is not liable – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S.…

Death case – Motor Accident – the actual income should be computed @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income (Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 60,000) amounts to 2,10,000 – With a 1/4th deduction (4 dependents), the annual loss of dependency ( 2,10,000 – 52,500) would be Rs. 1,57,500 – Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., Rs. 1,57,500 x 16) is Rs. Rs. 25,20,000 – Filial and parental consortium have to be increased – Each of the children, and the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- – Thus, the total amount payable towards filial and parental consortium is Rs. 1,20,000/- – Appellants are entitled to Rs. 25,20,000/- towards loss of dependency; and the three appellants being the children and mother of the deceased, are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARPREET KAUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MOHINDER YADAV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

HELD – SCOI assess the wholebody disability at 30% and propose to enhance the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering due to two surgeries undergone and future surgeries to be undergone. Also towards loss of future amenities and towards loss of income during laid up period for a period of twelve months compensation is enhanced –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T. J. PARAMESHWARAPPA @ PARAMESHWARAPPA @ J.T. PARAMESHWARAPPA @ TALALKENA GOWDRA PARAMESHWARAPPA — Appellant Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER,NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS…

Motor Accident – – Even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well- From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling – If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIDRAM — Appellant Vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala,…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Just Compensation – Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard – claimants cannot expect a wind fall but compensation so granted cannot be PITTANCE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ BALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAKEJA BEGAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 and 168 – Death in accident – Enhancement of compensation – While awarding the loss of dependency, the High Court has not awarded/considered the future prospects at all – also erred in reducing the interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. entitled to 7.5 per cent interest p a.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARUP SINGH @ RAM SARUP — Appellant Vs. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.