Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court upheld liability under a comprehensive motor insurance policy for the owner travelling as a passenger, and issued broad directions to improve uninsured-vehicle enforcement.
The Supreme Court held that on the uncontroverted medical and neuropsychological evidence (Medical Board certificate and neuropsychological assessment showing severe memory impairment, frontal lobe dysfunction and IQ 65 with partial blindness and orthopedic limitations) the appellant's injuries cumulatively rendered him functionally incapable of discharging his pre-accident managerial duties; accordingly functional disability for computation of loss of earning capacity was to be assessed at 100%, the MACT and High Court awards were modified and total compensation was recalculated to Rs.97,73,…
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in directing pay and recovery against the owner because the insurer failed to prove that the insured deliberately breached the condition of entrustment or failed to exercise due diligence; production of the licence by the owner and existence of a renewal certificate, together with absence of proof of collusion or entrustment breach, meant the insurer could not be allowed to recover the award amounts from the owner.
Source excerpt
Although the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and that fact exonerated the insurer from liability under the policy, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's enhanced award but directed that the insurer must satisfy the award (pay the claimant), and that the insurer may thereafter recover the amount from the insured-owner (application of the 'pay and recover' principle).
Source excerpt
The certificate of registration and contract carriage permit and the package policy identified the vehicle as a Utility Van with seating capacity 4+1; the 'limitation as to use' clause in the policy, being directed at goods vehicles, did not apply to the utility vehicle; the insurer admitted the policy was issued after perusing registration and permit and gave no recital excluding passenger cover; eyewitness evidence supported four passengers being onboard; accordingly the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner and the High Court order directing pay and recover was not sustained.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that while the appellant was contributorily negligent for not maintaining sufficient distance and driving without a valid licence, the root cause was the sudden braking by the car driver; apportionment of negligence was fixed as car driver 50%, bus driver 30% and appellant 20%. The Court fixed notional monthly income at Rs.20,000, multiplier 18 and future prospects at 40%, computed loss of income at Rs.60,48,000; upheld attendant charges at Rs.18,00,000 and future medical expenses at Rs.5,00,000, increased loss of marital prospects to Rs.5,00,000 and fixed total compens…
Source excerpt
The first survey report dated 06.09.2016 and corroborating expert certificates, conducted promptly, established that the proximate cause of the damage was flooding due to unprecedented heavy rainfall entering the basement; the insurer’s later second survey (report dated 18.10.2016) deviated without explanation and was arbitrary; accordingly the Court set aside the second survey and the contrary findings of NCDRC and remanded the matter for quantification of compensation in accordance with the policy.
Source excerpt
The High Court was correct to hold that the married daughter (Appellant No.1) failed to prove financial dependence on the deceased and therefore is only entitled to compensation under Section 140 as a legal representative; however the High Court erred in dismissing the mother's (Appellant No.2) claim because evidence showed she lived with and was solely dependent on the deceased, and on reassessment of all relevant factors the mother is entitled to Rs.19,22,356 as compensation.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in dismissing the Section 11(6) applications; where a party pleads that a discharge voucher was executed under economic duress and reserves rights to invoke arbitration, the question of duress and the validity/effect of the voucher are for the arbitral tribunal to decide; therefore the petition for appointment of arbitrator should be allowed and the matter referred to arbitration (impugned order set aside).
Source excerpt
Regulation 53 of the Tariff Regulations does not extend to replacement of transformers damaged by internal faults as such replacements amount to maintenance/operation and maintenance expenses rather than additional capital works; Note 2 requires writing off original asset value before considering replacement; the appellant's self-insurance reserve covered losses caused by fire and the proximate cause of damage was the implosion/explosion causing fire, therefore the net cost of replacement was to be met from the appellant's self-insurance fund; consequently CERC and the Appellate Tribunal were…
Source excerpt
Explore more
