Category: Accident

HELD – looking to the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant and permanent partial disability and prolonged hospitalisation and the operations performed for right subfrontal craniotomy and evacuation of basifrontal contusion [03.10.2011]; repair of right ear [03.10.2011]; closed unreamed tibial interlock nailing [03.10.2011]; and Tracheostomy [05.10.2011], we are of the opinion that Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities, joy and Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards pain/sufferings respectively can be said to be on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that under the aforesaid heads, namely, loss of amenities, joy and towards pain/sufferings respectively, if a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- [over and above Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- on each count)] is awarded.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVDHAR KUMAR VASHIYA — Appellant Vs. RANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Conclude Disciplinary proceedings – It appreciate the steps taken by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, which shall ensure to maintain the purity of the legal profession in the State of Uttar Pradesh and also impress upon the Bar Council of India/Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law as early as possible. Before Directions – Before any further directions are issued, response from the Ministry of Transport, Government of India to have their suggestions for remedial and preventive measures for curbing the menace of filing of false/fraud claim petitions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAFIQ AHMAD — Appellant Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court has awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses – The said Judgment of the Constitution Bench was pronounced in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 10% enhancement. Rs.16,500/- is awarded towards loss of estate and conventional expenses and Rs.44,000/- is awarded towards spousal consortium. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.31,01,000 – Appeal disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASMITA BISWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Motor Accident Death – Enhancement of compensation – Determination of future economic loss – In case deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by adding future rise in income –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. MEENA PAWAIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASHRAF ALI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

Rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable – HELD the conviction of the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. Imposition of fine is also affirmed. Besides the fine, an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs which has been deposited by the appellant by way of compensation in the Registry of this Court be transferred to the Motor Accident Tribunal which shall be released by the Tribunal to the widow of the deceased.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAGAR LOLIENKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable, Schedule-II is not yet amended – It appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier ’15’, as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Motor Accident – Permanent disability – Loss of Earning Capacity – – Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss of earning capacity is concerned – Loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100% – Compensation enhanced to Rs.27,67,800 – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITHENDRAN — Appellant Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Compensation – Claim petition filed by mother in law ‘dependent’ – Maintainability – Mother ­in ­law was living with the deceased and his family members – In order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency – Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation – Mother in law of deceased is legal representative under Section 166 of MV Act and entitled to maintain the claim petition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  N. JAYASREE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari,…

Death in accident – Driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance – Compensation – Appeal against Enhancement – It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the very car and PW–3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye–witness – In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report – High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHAMUNDESWARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed