Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Motor vehicle law

RAMA BAI versus M/S AMIT MINERALS THROUGH INCHARGE OFFICER/COMPETENT OFFICER & ANRS.

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

  • Doctrine of pay and recover
  • Validity of driving licence
  • Breach of insurance policy conditions
  • Assessment of compensation
Read case analysis
Criminal law

THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH versus RAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS & ANR.

There is no bar under Motor Vehicles Act to prosecute offences relating to motor vehicle accidents under IPC; both statutes operate in separate spheres without conflict, and prosecution may be pursued under either or both statutes so long as no double punishment is imposed.

Source excerpt

  • Prosecution of motor vehicle offences
  • Applicability of penal code to road traffic offences
  • Conflict between ipc and motor vehicles act
  • Principle of proportionality in punishment
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

In light of the submissions by the Amicus Curiae, response of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and public interest, Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions on road safety policy, councils, funds, action plans, audits, equipment, education, medical care, helpline, and faithful implementation.

Source excerpt

  • Road safety
  • Public health
  • Accident compensation
  • Implementation of safety norms
Read case analysis
Motor vehicle law

U.P.S.R.T.C. versus KM. MAMTA & ORS

The High Court, acting as the first appellate court under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, failed to discharge its statutory obligation by not properly considering the evidence, facts, and law, nor setting out its reasoning as required by Order XX Rule 4(2) and Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, making its judgment legally unsustainable.

Source excerpt

  • Scope of first appeal under motor vehicles act
  • Appellate court's duty under section 173 of motor vehicles act
  • Requirements of order xx rule 4(2) and order xli rule 31 cpc
Read case analysis
Motor vehicle law

MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. versus NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

Registered owner, insurer, and Corporation (KSRTC) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to claimants for accidents involving leased vehicles; under Section 2(30) and 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurer's liability persists even when vehicle is given on lease, and KSRTC as possessor/controller is treated as owner for purpose of statutory liability; KSRTC, being in actual control, can recover compensation paid from registered owner or insurer according to lease agreement.

Source excerpt

  • Third party liability
  • Insurance policy
  • Liability in vehicle leasing/hiring
  • Definition of owner under motor vehicles act
Read case analysis
Tort law

BASAPPA S/O SANGANABASAPPA BAHVIKATTI versus T. RAMESH S/O TANGAVELU AND ANR.

Functional disability is correctly assessed at 85% based on claimant's occupation as a manual labourer, applying multiplier method in Note (5) of Second Schedule to Motor Vehicle Act; compensation for pain and suffering enhanced; rate of interest increased to 9%.

Source excerpt

  • Compensation for accident victims
  • Assessment of permanent disability
  • Loss of earning capacity
  • Interest on compensation
Read case analysis
Motor vehicle law

NARINDER SINGH. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Where an accident occurs after expiration of a temporary registration and no subsequent permanent or further temporary registration is obtained, the use of the vehicle is illegal under Section 39 and Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and amounts to a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the insured is not entitled to claim compensation from the insurer.

Source excerpt

  • Vehicle registration
  • Insurance claim repudiation
  • Breach of policy conditions
Read case analysis
Motor vehicle law

KALPANARAJ versus TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act must be determined on gross income with applicable statutory deductions, not net income; 30% addition for future prospects and deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses. Multiplier of 13 is correct for age 46, and loss of consortium, love and affection, estate, expectation of life, and funeral expenses should be calculated as per prevailing Supreme Court jurisprudence. High Court erred by improper deductions and undervaluing non-pecuniary heads.

Source excerpt

  • Fatal accident compensation
  • Determination of income
  • Multiplier and deductions
  • Loss of consortium
  • Loss of estate
  • Interest award
Read case analysis
Motor vehicle law

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

The liability under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is on the principle of no fault; the question of who is at fault is immaterial in an enquiry under Section 163-A. Once it is established that death or permanent disablement occurred during the course of the use of the insured vehicle, the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be, is statutorily obliged to pay compensation.

Source excerpt

  • Structured formula compensation
  • Section 163-a liability
  • No fault principle
  • Insurance company defence
  • Reference to larger bench
Read case analysis
Motor vehicle law

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus DYAMAWA & ORS.

Claimants, having first filed the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and not having exercised their option under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, are entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, subject to deduction of amount received under Workmen's Compensation Act. Dual benefit is not permitted and deduction gives full effect to Section 167.

Source excerpt

  • Compensation for death in accident
  • Deduction of compensation
  • Doctrine of election
  • Workmen's compensation
  • Motor accident claims
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.