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 income assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act depends on the claimant’s employment type, fixing a self-employed deceased’s income at Rs.14 lakh and modifying compensation.
Supreme Court upheld negligence findings against the truck driver, refused further enhancement for loss of dependency, but added filial consortium to the parents.
The Supreme Court held that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right and enhanced motor accident compensation awarded for a child’s death.
The Supreme Court held that a falling tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw did not support Section 166 liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, but enhanced compensation under Article 142.
The vehicles used by the appellants are construction equipment/off-road vehicles designed and used for operation within industrial/factory or other enclosed premises and are therefore excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are not taxable under Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule or the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (including absence of any rate in Schedule I); accordingly the High Court's holdings to the contrary were set aside and the appeals allowed.
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
Under Article 32 the Court issued directions requiring NHAI, road‑owning agencies and State/municipal authorities to audit and remediate footpaths and pedestrian crossings per IRC/MOHUA standards, enforce helmet laws through e‑enforcement, address lane discipline and unsafe overtaking, regulate and ban unauthorized dazzling LED headlights, red‑blue strobe lights and illegal hooters, and directed States/UTs to notify rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210‑D of the Motor Vehicles Act within six months, with compliance to be reported in seven months.
Source excerpt
The absence of the endorsement required by s.11 read with r.9 for driving a goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods (the oil tanker) was not a mere technicality because r.9 prescribes driving skill training material to which the lack of such endorsement could be causally connected to an accident caused by rash and negligent driving; the driver admitted there was no endorsement, the vehicle was carrying oil, and the training certificate produced first at the appellate stage was rightly rejected under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, therefore the Tribunal’s direction that the insurer pay the…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court declined to decide the merits on whether State levies are covered by State enactments under Entries 56 & 57 of List II, held that because State Acts and Rules levying the tax were not challenged the Court would not interfere with State demands, disposed the petitions and granted liberty to petitioners to approach their jurisdictional High Courts; taxes already recovered are subject to the outcome of those High Court petitions and petitioners must give undertakings regarding interim reliefs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
