Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Accident

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 173 — Award of Tribunal reversed by High Court — Claimant appealing — Death in hit and run accident alleged — Victim’s family claiming compensation — Husband of first appellant died in alleged accident — Accident witnessed by neighbour — High Court found accident and vehicle involvement not proved — Appeal dismissed.

Sep 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1176 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : K. Vinod Chandran and N. V.…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 173 — Motor Vehicle Accident Claim — Quantum of Compensation — Medical Expenses — Insurance company unable to verify medical bills from hospitals in places other than victim’s hometown is not a valid contention. Explanation for treatment in other locations due to victim’s medical condition (paraplegia and pneumonia) and climatic conditions is accepted.

Sep 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1164 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHARAD SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR. Vs. H. D. NARANG AND ANOTHER ( Before : K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 173 — Compensation — Calculation of — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — High Court — Appeals — Appellant aged 38 years— sustained grievous injuries in a road accident — High Court revised monthly income but omitted future prospects and adopted a lower disability percentage — Supreme Court allowed appeal, adding 40% for future prospects to self-employed claimants as per settled law — Supreme Court accepted neuro-psychologist’s assessment of 41.77% functional disability as it was not rebutted or doubted, overriding the lower percentage adopted by Tribunal and High Court without reasoning

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 939 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LOKESH B Vs. SURYANARAYANA RAJU JAGGARAJU AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos…..of…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Contract Act, 1872 — Section 2(d) — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Notional Income Future Prospects — Multiplier — Contributory Negligence — Attendant Charges — Future Medical Expenses — Loss of Marital Prospects — Discomfort — Extra Nourishment — Medical Bills — Motor Accident — Amputation — Functional Disability — In a motor accident case involving a young engineering student who suffered amputation of his leg due to the negligence of multiple parties, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation by reassessing the notional income, elaborating on future prospects, applying an appropriate multiplier, and reinstating the original attendant charges awarded by the Tribunal, deeming the High Court’s reduction unjustified

Jul 31, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 905 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. MOHAMMED HAKKIM Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Accident

Insurance Law — Motor Insurance Policy — Guidelines (IMT) — Guidelines issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee (IMT) regulate the issuance of policies but cannot bind the insured unless specified in the insurance policy itself. – – Personal Accident Cover — Contractual liability — Claim based on personal accident cover is a contractual liability, not a statutory one — The question is whether the liability was limited or not, which depends on the terms specified in the policy.

Jul 27, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 896 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJUSHA AND OTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.…

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 10(2)(d) & 2(21) — Driving Licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) — Validity for driving commercial vehicle with Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 7500 kg — Driver possessing LMV license can drive transport vehicle up to 7500 kg without additional endorsement — Constitutional Bench decision in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi affirmed Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Jul 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 867 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNITA AND OTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. )…

You missed

Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition for death of bachelor — Selection of Multiplier — Multiplier to be determined based on age of deceased and not age of dependents/parents — Deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident — Correct multiplier applicable according to standardized matrix in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi is 16 — Argument of insurer that multiplier should correspond to age of parents rejected — MACT and High Court rightly applied multiplier of 16.

Sep 4, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw