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
Supreme Court upheld negligence findings against the truck driver, refused further enhancement for loss of dependency, but added filial consortium to the parents.
The High Court erred in applying the split multiplier without recording special reasons; the Tribunal's application of multiplier 9 on annual income of Rs.4,57,000 (with one-third deduction for personal expenses) was correct; the appellants are entitled to future prospects at 15%; loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000 each are appropriate; loss of consortium is Rs.40,000 each for three claimants; accordingly the award is modified and enhanced to a total of Rs.33,03,000 with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the appellant had suffered 70% permanent disability and the High Court erred in assessing functional/economic disability at 35%; on the facts the loss of future earning capacity was assessed at 60% and a 40% addition for future prospects was applied; compensation for prosthetic limbs and their maintenance was increased to reflect lifetime need; non-pecuniary heads were increased. The impugned judgment was modified and the appellant was awarded total compensation of Rs.38,70,120 with 9% per annum interest from the date of making the application.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's and High Court's application of two multipliers was erroneous; multiplier must be applied based on the deceased's age as laid down in Sarla Verma and affirmed in Pranay Sethi, and for a deceased aged 54 the appropriate multiplier is 11; accordingly the compensation was recalculated and enhanced to Rs.24,33,064 with interest at 9% from date of filing until realization.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in disbelieving the solitary independent eye-witness (AW-3) and in placing reliance on a hearsay and belated FIR; in MACT claims the standard is preponderance of probabilities, failure of respondents to cross-examine AW-3 leads to tacit admission, and therefore the Tribunal’s finding of liability against the respondents is upheld. The appellants are entitled to the Tribunal award, with a 40% addition for future prospects; the Tribunal is directed to re-calculate compensation and the insurer to deposit the amount with interest at 8.5% within the stipulated time.
Source excerpt
Procedural lapse in exhibiting documents cannot be ground for dismissal of claim petition where sufficient evidence was adduced and not rebutted; claimants are entitled to compensation for fatal accident proved by oral and documentary evidence; Motor Vehicles Act is construed as beneficial legislation favoring victims.
Source excerpt
Absence of permit at time of accident is a fundamental statutory infraction under Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Insurer must pay compensation to claimants with interest, but is entitled to recover from owner and driver, as neither brought evidence to establish permit existed at the relevant time. Directions of tribunal and High Court are consonant with 'pay and recover' principle.
Source excerpt
In cases of composite negligence, liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. Claimant may recover the entire compensation from any of them. Apportionment of compensation vis-à-vis claimant is not permitted; determination of negligence between tortfeasors is for inter-se recovery only. If all tortfeasors are impleaded and evidence sufficient, court may determine their inter-se liability; otherwise, impleaded tortfeasor can sue the other independently after award.
Source excerpt
Commission of Inquiry report is unsustainable for non-compliance with Sections 88 and 8C; a new Commission is appointed. Interim compensation directed to be paid by State pending Commission's report, as statutory violations and negligence are evident; organizers must also deposit interim amount with Court. Apportionment of liability and maintainability of the writ will be decided after the receipt of the new Commission report.
Source excerpt
Contributory negligence is not established merely by absence of a driving licence; since there was no finding of rash or negligent driving by appellant, he is entitled to the full compensation without deduction.
Source excerpt
Explore more
