Category: Accident

Motor Accident Compensation] For Age Group 15-25, Multiplier To Be Applied Is ’18’HELD multiplier applied was 13 while as per the judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.- (2009) 6 SCC 121, it should have been 18.(b) The interest granted is of 6% which generally the interest being granted is of 9%”

Motor Accident Compensation] For Age Group 15-25, Multiplier To Be Applied Is ’18’, Reiterates SC   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2831 of 2020…

Accident Law–Multiplier–Deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident–Claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act–In the case of the deceased whose age was above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years, the multiplier of 17 in terms of the Second Schedule is required to be applied

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6227 of 2006] Mohan Singh…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Accidental Death Loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are not separate heads for compensation – HELD the relevant compensation criteria death case, are : (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependants left behind by the deceased; and (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer,…

Motor Vehicle – Just and Proper compensation – Enhancement of compensation – Horse cart was hit by a bus resulting into deaths – Deduction on account of contributory negligence held to be unsustainable – Therefore total compensation payable to the appellants in the first appeal at Rs.11,96,000/. Child death cosiderations determination shall not depend upon financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and ability of the deceased to provide happiness in life to the claimants had she remained alive.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS @APPELLAN Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 2(30) – Definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, who, for the purposes of the said Act, would be treated as the owner of the vehicle.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURENDRA KUMAR BHILAWE — Appellant Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…

Accident – Rash and negligent driving – Compensation – Enhancement of – Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work .Whole body disability assessed at 32%. HELD Appeal allowed. High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20%

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAVITHA — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHODAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and…

HELD High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30% – As per the judgments of this Court primarily the age group is to be considered – Considering the age group as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is maintained by the High Court, there is no reason or justification for reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future prospects – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M.H. UMA MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R.…