Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 Appellant, a 20-year-old student, suffered amputation of his left leg in a motor accident - Accident occurred when a car ahead suddenly applied brakes, causing appellant to collide with it and subsequently being run over by a bus - MACT awarded Rs. 91 lakhs initially, which was reduced to Rs. 73 lakhs due to 20%...
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025
Appellant, a 20-year-old student, suffered amputation of his left leg in a motor accident - Accident occurred when a car ahead suddenly applied brakes, causing appellant to collide with it and subsequently being run over by a bus - MACT awarded Rs. 91 lakhs initially, which was reduced to Rs. 73 lakhs due to 20% contributory negligence by appellant - High Court further reduced the compensation to Rs. 58 lakhs, while modifying the liability for negligence: car driver 40%, bus driver 30% and appellant 30% - Supreme Court modified High Court's order and held that driver must give signal before stopping on Highway and awarded Rs. 91 lakhs compensation to victim who lost his leg in a motor accident, re-evaluating contributory negligence and notional income - Held that the appellant is 20% liable for contributory negligence (for not maintaining sufficient distance and driving without a valid license), the car driver 50% liable and the bus driver 30% liable - Supreme Court enhanced the notional monthly income from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- considering appellant's future prospects as an engineering student - Applied a multiplier of 18 and 40% for future prospects - Attendant charges of Rs. 18 lakhs reinstated due to 100% functional disability and compensation for loss of marital prospects increased to Rs. 5 lakhs - Set aside order of High court and modified compensation. [Paras 8-11] S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2025 INSC 905
Appellants, daughters of the deceased, filed claims for compensation after their parents died in a road accident involving a bus owned by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and a Tempo Traveler insured by Oriental Insurance Company. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 58,24,000/- for the father and Rs. 93,61,000/- for the mother. The High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 26,68,600/- for the father and Rs. 19,22,680/- for the mother. Whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly in light of the appellants' contention that the business run by their deceased parents suffered a significant loss due to their inexperience. Held, the takeover of the deceased persons' business by dependents does not justify reducing motor accident compensation. The deceased persons' contribution to the business must be considered in assessing compensation claims. The Tribunal's award was well-considered and based on reliable evidence, including Income Tax Returns. The High Court's reduction of compensation was unjustified, as it failed to consider the appellants' lack of experience and the consequent decline in business profitability. The Court emphasized that the transfer of business ownership to the appellants did not automatically mean they could run the business as effectively as their parents. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Tribunal's award, holding that the compensation was just and reasonable. S. Vishnu Ganga v. Oriental Insurance, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 132
Appellant suffered severe injuries in a motor accident resulting in 60% permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 19,43,800/- with 7% interest. The High Court partially allowed the appellant's appeal, enhancing the compensation for loss of income from Rs. 11,23,200/- to Rs. 27,21,600/- but did not address other heads of compensation adequately. The appellant argued that the MACT and High Court failed to consider the doctor's recommendations and the long-term impact of his disabilities. The Respondent contended that the High Court correctly assessed the notional income and future prospects, and that the compensation under other heads was adequate based on the evidence. The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and other precedents regarding the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, emphasizing the multiplier method and the need for uniformity. The Court found that the High Court correctly enhanced the compensation for loss of income but failed to adequately address other heads of compensation, such as future medical expenses, speech therapy, physiotherapy, and attendant charges, which were not in line with medical recommendations. The Court also noted that the compensation under non-pecuniary heads was insufficient and needed enhancement. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive and just assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, ensuring that all heads of compensation, including future medical needs and non-pecuniary damages, are adequately addressed. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 48,00,000/- to reflect the appellant's long-term needs and the impact of his disabilities. Atul Tiwari v. Oriental Insurance, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 26 : (2025) 3 SCC 6
Assessment of Compensation – Deceased Employed in Foreign Country – Divergent Views on 'Double Deduction' and Moderation of Foreign Income - The Supreme Court referred the issue of assessing compensation in motor accident cases where the deceased was employed in a foreign country to a Larger Bench, noting divergent judicial views on the application of "double deduction" - Held that the issue had “wide ramifications” given the growing number of Indians working overseas, especially in the IT sector, the Bench stated that there being divergent views on the application of double deduction, the issue deserves to be resolved by a larger Bench. [Paras 11 - 15] Tharunoju Eshwaramma v. K. Ram Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1053
Assessment of contributory negligence in a motor accident claim - Contributory negligence cannot be presumed on mere allegations of high-speed driving without direct or corroborative evidence. Contributory negligence must be established through direct or corroborative evidence. Tribunal's assessment of negligence, based on evidence and spot inspection, should be upheld unless demonstrably erroneous. (Para 10 & 11) Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : 2025 INSC 293
Assessment of Income - Income assessment in compensation cases should consider proven income as per payslips and bank statements, and not be arbitrarily reduced. The High Court had reduced the deceased's monthly income from Rs. 62,725/- (as determined by the Tribunal) to Rs. 50,000/-. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's assessment, holding that the deceased's last drawn salary of Rs. 62,725/- (as per pay slip) was the correct basis for calculating compensation. (Para 14) Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : 2025 INSC 293
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rule 9 - Whether the absence of the endorsement in the driver's license to drive a vehicle carrying a hazardous vehicle absolved the insurer from honouring the claim because of a breach of condition? Held, Insurer can 'pay and recover' if driver of vehicle meant to carry hazardous substance did not have endorsement under Rule 9. An endorsement under Rule 9 is mandatory in the driving license for driving a vehicle carrying any dangerous or hazardous goods. Rule 9 mandates specialized training (including defensive driving, emergency handling, and product safety) and an endorsement for drivers of vehicles carrying hazardous goods. This training is integral to safe operation, rejecting arguments that the endorsement is a mere formality. The absence of such training directly relates to driving competence, especially for vehicles designed for hazardous cargo. (Para 12, 15 & 17) Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : 2025 INSC 468 : AIR 2025 SC 2324
Citizen's right to unhindered roads - Toll suspension – Held, NHAI or its agents can't levy toll if road is pothole ridden - Public's obligation to pay a user fee for roads is based on assurance that their travel will be free of hindrances - When public pays a toll, they acquire a corresponding right to safe, unhindered and regulated access to the road - Upheld order of High Court's decision to suspend toll collection for 4 weeks - High Court's approach was 'citizen centric approach' and that hardship faced by citizens such as long waits in traffic, strained environment and waste fuel was of greater concern - Supreme Court refused to order a proportionate reduction in toll, noting that the issue was a total lock jam and not just minor repairs in patches - Appeal dismissed and held that citizens should be free to travel on roads for which they have already paid taxes 'without further payment to navigate the gutters and pot-holes, symbols of inefficiency'. [Paras 11, 12, 17] National Highway Authority of India v. O.J Janeesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 819
Compensation - Directions for Direct Bank Transfer of Compensation to Road Accident Victims and Workmen - The Supreme Court, in a suo motu case initiated based on a letter from a retired District Judge, issued comprehensive directions to ensure direct bank transfer of compensation to claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Noting that over Rs 282 crores and Rs 6.61 crores remain unclaimed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and Labour Courts in Gujarat, respectively, with similar issues in other states, the Court emphasized the need to address the serious concern of unclaimed compensation. The directions include mandatory submission of claimants' bank account details, Aadhar, PAN, and email IDs; verification of bank accounts by MACTs; and direct transfer of compensation to claimants' accounts. The Court also mandated High Courts to issue practice directions, create dashboards for tracking deposited amounts, and initiate drives with Legal Services Authorities to trace claimants. These directions apply until states frame relevant rules, with compliance reports due by July 30, 2025. (Para 9) In Re Compensation Amounts Deposited with MACT and Labour Courts, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 455 : 2025 INSC 530
Compensation – Held, minimum wages cannot be determined solely on the basis of a person's educational qualification, without reference to the nature of work carried on - Taking into account that victim that the victim would reasonably have been employed as an accountant upon graduation, fixed a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- in 2001, with 40% addition towards future prospects, including medical expenses, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and marriage prospects - Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40.34 lakhs besides directing the insurer to pay an additional Rs. 20 lakhs towards verified medical expenses incurred by victim's parents during his lifetime - Considering victim's bright prospects, minimum wages unsuitable for income estimation. [Paras 4-7] Sharad Singh v HD Narang, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 964 : 2025 INSC 1164
Constitutional Law—Legislative Competence and Repeal of Statutes—Delegation of Quasi-Judicial Powers—Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 ("2003 Amendment Act"), which repealed the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 ("1976 Act"). The 1976 Act, previously upheld by the Court, had nationalized private contract carriages under state control. The repeal, aimed at liberalizing the transport sector and addressing public transport shortages, fell within the State Legislature's plenary powers and did not require fresh Presidential assent, as a repeal extinguishes prior provisions without recreating a new framework or overriding judicial precedents. The Court further validated the delegation under Section 68(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("MV Act"), read with Rule 56(1)(d) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ("KMV Rules"), empowering the Secretary of the State Transport Authority ("STA") to grant non-stage carriage permits (including contract, special, tourist, and temporary permits). Rejecting claims that such delegation undermined the quasi-judicial nature of permit-granting—requiring a multi-member body—the Court held that administrative law permits express statutory delegation of routine quasi-judicial functions to a single officer for efficiency, provided it is calibrated (e.g., excluding complex stage carriage permits) and subject to oversight. This delegation prevents STA overload, reduces delays, and aligns with the MV Act's intent to enhance public transport delivery without arbitrary discretion. Appeal allowed; Karnataka High Court's declaration of the 2003 Amendment Act as unconstitutional set aside. No infringement of legislative competence or delegation doctrines; repeal and delegation constitutionally sound as policy-driven reforms. S.R.S. Travels v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 166 : 2025 INSC 152 : (2025) 3 SCC 491
Contributory Negligence – Learner's License - In a motor accident claim, contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely from the driver's possession of a learner's license. The collision at the trailer's tail-end did not inherently indicate negligence by the driver. Negligence must be proved by evidence, with preponderance of probabilities as the standard. (Para 12 & 13) Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 352 : 2025 INSC 394
Deduction for Personal Expenses - The High Court erred in not deducting one-third of the deceased's income towards personal expenses. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : (2025) 3 SCC 23
Determination of compensation – Monthly income of deceased fruit seller – Multiplier – Deduction for personal expenses – Inclusion of father and sister as dependents – Liability of insurer to pay and recover from driver and owner - Deceased, aged 24, died in a motor vehicle accident. Tribunal awarded compensation based on a notional income of Rs. 4,500 per month, deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, and excluding the deceased's father and sister as dependents - High Court affirmed - Whether the Tribunal and High Court correctly assessed the monthly income, applied the appropriate multiplier, made the correct deduction for personal expenses, and rightly excluded the father and sister as dependents – Held, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts' assessment of the deceased's monthly income. Considering the deceased's occupation as a fruit seller, the Court adopted the minimum wage for an unskilled worker (Rs. 6,500 per month) as a basis. The multiplier of 18, as applied by the High Court, was upheld as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The father and sister, being financially dependent, were legal representatives under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, entitling them to compensation. Therefore, the deduction for personal expenses was reduced to 1/4th. The insurance company must first pay the award and then recover from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, as the driver lacked a valid license. The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 9,77,200 to Rs. 17,52,500. The appeals was allowed, and the tribunals order was modified. (Para 16 & 17) Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Kushwaha, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309
Determination of just compensation - The claimants (dependents of the deceased) sought ₹3,00,00,000 as compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal awarded ₹75,97,060 with 9% interest per annum, based on a monthly income of ₹62,725. The High Court modified the Tribunal's findings, attributing 25% contributory negligence to the deceased and reducing the assessed income to ₹50,000 per month, awarding ₹77,50,000 at 6% interest per annum. The claimants challenged the High Court's assessment of contributory negligence and reduction of income. The Supreme Court recalculated the compensation, awarding a total of Rs. 1,20,84,925/- to the appellants (claimants). This included future prospects (40% of income), deductions (1/4th for personal expenses), and application of a multiplier of 15 (based on the deceased's age of 38 years). The Tribunal's award of 9% interest per annum was upheld. The appeals were allowed, and the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 77,50,000/- (as awarded by the High Court) to Rs. 1,20,84,925/-. The impugned judgments of the High Court and Tribunal were modified accordingly. (Para 15 & 16) Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : 2025 INSC 293
Direct Bank Transfer of Compensation - Streamlining Payment Process – Directions issued. (Para 17 - 21) Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : 2025 INSC 361 : AIR 2025 SC 1713 : (2025) 9 SCC 539
Disability Assessment - Compensation for Pain and Suffering - The appellant, a diamond cutter by profession, suffered grievous injuries, including complete loss of vision in one eye, due to a collision caused by the negligence of an auto-rickshaw driver. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, had awarded Rs. 8,70,000/- as compensation, which was later enhanced to Rs. 10,57,500/- by the High Court. The Supreme Court, however, found the High Court's computation of disability at 65% insufficient, given the nature of the appellant's profession, which requires precise vision. The Court held that the functional disability should be assessed at 100%, considering the appellant's inability to continue his vocation as a diamond cutter. Additionally, the Court enhanced the compensation for "pain and suffering" from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-, recognizing the profound impact of the accident on the appellant's life and career. The total compensation awarded by the Supreme Court was Rs. 15,98,000/-, with an interest rate of 8% from the date of the claim petition. Appeal was allowed modifying the compensation awarded by the High Court. Jayanandan v. Varkey, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 44
Disability Certified by Medical Board – Held, a disability certificate issued by a Medical Board, being expert evidence, is binding unless a reassessment is ordered by the court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision reducing the appellant's disability from 100% to 50% without ordering a reassessment, as such re-determination lacks legal basis. The appellant, rendered comatose due to multiple injuries from a vehicular collision, was awarded Rs.48,70,000/- in compensation, reversing the High Court's enhancement from Rs.16,29,465/- to Rs.19,39,418/-. Tribunals or courts questioning a Medical Board's disability certificate must order a reassessment rather than substituting their own judgment. (Para 9) Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : 2025 INSC 180
Discrepancy in the make of the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim when the vehicle's registration number and other key details are consistent and correctly mentioned. (Para 4) Parameshwar Subray Hegde v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 334
Enhancement - Minor Victim (77.1% Disability) - The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor victim from Rs. 7.48 Lakhs to Rs. 15.13 Lakhs - Held, compensation must be favourably addressed considering the severity of injuries and disability - Awarded Rs. 3 Lakhs towards 'Pain and Suffering' and Rs. 3 Lakhs towards 'Loss of Marriage Prospects'- Supreme Court added 40% for future prospects, a multiplier of 15 and calculating for 77.1 % disability, loss of future earnings was calculated at Rs. 7, 03,337/-; lumpsum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded for medical expenses; attendant charges at Rs. 40,000/- and loss of amenities at Rs. 80,000/-; Appeal allowed. [Relied on Sona (minor) vs. Manual C.M. (Civil Appeal No. 002316 of 2025); Paras 5, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (2017) 16 SCC 680; Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413; K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr. (2024 SCC Online SC 3385); Paras 4-6] Riyas v. P.N. Shinosh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1094 : 2025 INSC 1303
Enhancement of Compensation - 100% Disability – The Supreme Court enhanced compensation awarded to a 21-year-old claimant who suffered 100% permanent disability (quadriplegia) in a motor vehicle accident. The Court reassessed the claimant's income, considering his qualifications and potential, and granted future prospects. Additional compensation was awarded for attendant charges, special diet, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of marriage prospects, and physiotherapy. (Para 8 - 13) Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : 2025 INSC 361 : AIR 2025 SC 1713 : (2025) 9 SCC 539
Foreign Earnings - Multiplier in motor accident claims cannot be reduced on the ground that the deceased was earning in foreign currency. The multiplier is fixed on the basis of the age of the victim and cannot be altered based on the ground of foreign income. The exchange rate prevailing as on the date of the filing of the petition has to be adopted. (Para 9 & 10) Shyam Prasad Nagalla v. Andhra Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 351 : 2025 INSC 193
Income Assessment - Xerox copies of Income Tax Returns - Whether the High Court erred in assessing the deceased's income without proper proof - The Tribunal rightly disregarded xerox copies of Income Tax Returns and made a reasonable estimation of income based on surrounding circumstances. The High Court's assessment of the deceased's income, though based on assumptions, was reasonable given the circumstances and the age of the deceased. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : (2025) 3 SCC 23
Insurance Claim - National Permit - The appellant's truck, registered in Bihar and covered under a valid insurance policy, suffered an electrical short-circuit fire on June 8, 2014, while operating within Bihar. The insurer repudiated the claim, contending that the national permit (valid from October 14, 2012, to October 13, 2017) was invalidated due to non-payment of the state authorization fee beyond October 14, 2013. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, allowed the claim, but the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set it aside, holding no valid permit existed. Whether non-payment of the state authorization fee for a national permit invalidates an insurance claim when the vehicle is used solely within its home state and a valid national permit subsists. Held, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC order and restoring the State Commission's decision. A valid national permit remains operative for insurance purposes even without payment of the state authorization fee, provided the vehicle operates within its registered state. Such fee is required only for inter-state movement. Here, the incident occurring in Bihar rendered the repudiation frivolous, entitling the appellant to the claim. The Court emphasized that the national permit, issued by Bihar authorities, complied with policy terms absent any out-of-state travel. Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 171 : 2025 INSC 154
Insurance company contended that the vehicle involved was not the one insured and challenged the liability. The MACT found the insurance company, driver, and owner jointly and severally liable. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the MACT and the High Court that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident, rejecting the insurance company's claim of ambiguity regarding the vehicle's registration number. Insurance coverage is effective from the date of premium payment, irrespective of policy issuance timing. The insurance policy was deemed effective from the date of premium payment, even if the issuance was delayed, thus covering the accident. An insurance company bears the burden of proving a breach of policy conditions to avoid liability. The allegation of fraud by the insurance company was dismissed as unproven, reiterating that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proven with evidence. Allegations of fraud require specific pleading and proof. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the compensation awarded by the MACT and upheld by the High Court. The insurance company was held liable to indemnify the owner and compensate the claimants. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 58
Insurer of registered owner liable to compensate third-party losses arising out of vehicle, if vehicle's registration was not changed after transfer - Agreement between the registered owner and the appellant clearly indicated that registration would only be transferred after full sale consideration was paid, which had not occurred - The registered owner remained the owner and thus liable to compensate the victims, a liability to be indemnified by the insurer - The insurer was not absolved of its liability- Appeal dismissed. [Paras 7-11] Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 787 : 2025 INSC 948
Insurer's Liability - Tractor and Trailer - Third-Party Liability - Negligence - Compensation - Whether the insurer of a tractor is liable for the death of a passenger in an uninsured trailer caused by the tractor's negligence. Held, the insurer of a tractor is liable for an accident involving an uninsured trailer if the accident results from the tractor's negligence and not from any independent fault of the trailer. A trailer, when attached to and towed by an insured tractor, is deemed an extension of the tractor, requiring no separate insurance. The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's (MACT) order directing the insurer to compensate the claimants for the death of a woman in a trailer that overturned due to the negligent driving of the insured tractor. The Court endorsed the High Court's ruling in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Koduru Bhagyamma, 2007 SCC OnLine AP 830, confirming that a trailer attached to an insured tractor does not require separate insurance. The quantum of compensation and the insurer's liability were upheld. (Para 11 & 14) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance v. Honnamma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 533 : 2025 INSC 625 : AIR 2025 SC 2641
Inter-State Stage Carriage Permits on Notified Intra-State Routes – Override of Chapter VI over Chapter V (Section 98) – Validity of Permits on Overlapping Routes – Judicial Precedents – Issue - Whether a stage carriage permit can be granted to a private operator on an inter-State route, in terms of an InterState Reciprocal Transport (IS-RT) Agreement executed under Section 88 of the 1988 MV Act, when a portion of that inter-State route is common to an intra-State route which has been notified in terms of a scheme approved under Chapter VI of the Act – Held, Chapter VI of the 1988 MV Act, containing special provisions for state transport undertakings, has an overriding effect on Chapter V (which includes Section 88 concerning IS-RT Agreements) and any other inconsistent law or instrument, by virtue of Section 98 - An IS-RT Agreement, being merely an agreement between two States and not a law under the relevant MV Act, cannot override the provisions of an approved scheme and notified routes under Chapter VI - If there is a prohibition to operate on a notified route or routes (under an approved scheme), no permits can be granted to any private operator whose route traverses or overlaps any part or whole of that notified route - Substantial question of law is no longer res integra in view of the decisions of larger/Constitution Benches, which are equally binding - The grant of relief to private operators becomes "well-nigh impossible" - Supreme Court directed the Principal Secretaries of the Transport Departments of the States of Madhya Pradesh (MP) and Uttar Pradesh (UP) to meet within 3 months to discuss modalities for fully working out the IS-RT Agreement - The States may explore whether partial exclusion of interState routes from the approved scheme can be permitted to further public interest - Appeals allowed. [Relied on Adarsh Travels Bus Services v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1985) 4 SCC 557; Paras 23, 26, 40-42, 45, 49, 50] U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kashmiri Lal Batra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1062 : 2025 INSC 1281
Legal Representative - A legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child. The term 'legal representative' under the Motor Vehicle Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased's income. The father and sister, being financially dependent, were legal representatives under the Act entitling them to compensation. (Para 13 – 15) Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Kushwaha, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309
Loss of Dependency - Unemployed Husband - Held, unemployed husband can be presumed to be partially dependent on deceased wife's income. In determining insurance compensation, the deceased's husband cannot be excluded as a dependent merely because he is an able-bodied man. In the absence of proof of the husband's employment status, his dependency on the deceased's income cannot be disregarded and would be treated as partially dependent on his wife's income. (Para 7) Malakappa v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : 2025 INSC 590
Motor Accident Claim - Future Prospects - Awarding Interest - Appellant-Insurance Company assailed the award and amount of interest granted at rate of 9% to be paid to claimant – Held, no illegality in awarding interest on future prospects in motor accident compensation claim cases - Due to pendency of matter before Tribunal or in appeal before higher forums, claimants are deprived of compensation for future prospects - Compensation is not paid in time, so claimants are forced to source their livelihood from somewhere else - This delay is sought to be compensated at least by award of interest which is generally only simple interest - If amounts are disbursed to claimants on a rough calculation by Insurance companies, upon intimation of the accident, subject to award of the Tribunal, then there would not have been any interest liability at least to the extent of amount already paid - Directed to pay entire award amount with 9% interest from date of filing of the claim till date of disbursement - Appeal dismissed. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : 2025 INSC 822
Motor Accident Compensation – Conventional Heads - The appeals arose from a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of the appellant's parents and younger brother. The appellant, the legal heir of the deceased, sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal, while the insurer (respondent) sought reduction of the compensation. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 14,78,000/- for the father's death, Rs. 13,33,936/- for the mother's death, and Rs. 2,45,000/- for the brother's death. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,58,000/-, Rs. 16,34,000/-, and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively. Whether the High Court erred in awarding compensation exceeding the limits set under conventional heads. The Court upheld the High Court's award under conventional heads, noting that the judgment was delivered prior to the Pranay Sethi decision, which capped such awards at Rs. 70,000/-. However, the Court declined to reduce the compensation, as the difference was not excessive and the appellant had suffered significant loss. The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the High Court's enhanced compensation, finding it just and reasonable in light of the appellant's tragic loss and the principles of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : (2025) 3 SCC 23
Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Karnataka) repealed the Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (Karnataka), which had nationalized private contract carriages, and delegated the power to issue non-stage carriage permits (including contract carriages, special, tourist, and temporary vehicles) from the State Transport Authority (STA) to its Secretary under Section 68(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) read with Rule 56(1)(d) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (KMV Rules). The High Court struck down the delegation provision as unconstitutional, holding it required fresh presidential assent akin to the 1976 Act and that quasi-judicial permit-granting powers could not be delegated to a single officer. Aggrieved private operators appealed to the Supreme Court – Issues - 1. Whether Section 3 of the 2003 Act, repealing the 1976 Act (previously upheld by the Supreme Court), is constitutionally valid absent fresh presidential assent. 2. Whether the STA's delegation of routine non-stage carriage permit-granting authority to its Secretary violates administrative law principles, given the quasi-judicial nature of such functions. Held (Appeal Allowed): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 2003 Act and the delegation, dismissing the challenge by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). On Issue 1: The State Legislature possesses plenary power to repeal its enactments, including those previously assented to by the President, as a repeal merely extinguishes operative provisions without recreating a new framework or overriding judicial precedents. The 2003 repeal was a valid policy shift to liberalize the transport sector, address public transport shortages, and enhance private participation; no fresh presidential assent was required, as it fell squarely within legislative competence under Article 245 of the Constitution. On Issue 2: Delegation of quasi-judicial functions is permissible under administrative law if expressly authorized by the enabling statute, distinguishing between complex adjudicatory tasks (e.g., stage carriage permits, reserved for the full STA) and routine administrative functions (e.g., non-stage carriage permits). Section 68(5) of the MV Act and Rule 56(1)(d) of the KMV Rules explicitly permit such delegation to the STA Secretary—a senior expert officer—ensuring efficiency, timely service delivery, and oversight without arbitrary discretion. Prohibiting delegation would overburden the STA, causing delays and inefficiencies contrary to legislative intent. The Secretary is empowered to grant such permits subject to prescribed conditions. S.R.S. Travels v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 166 : 2025 INSC 152 : (2025) 3 SCC 491
National Highways Act, 1956 - Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002; Section 23 - Highway Administration Rules, 2004; Rule 3 (amended 2019) - Duty of Central Government to maintain National Highways free from encroachments - Ineffective enforcement of statutory provisions for encroachment removal - Safety hazards due to encroachments and lack of enforcement - Petition highlighted 53,181 deaths on Indian highways in 2017 (per “Road Accidents in India – 2017” report), attributing unsafe conditions to encroachments and enforcement failures. Previous orders noted absence of mechanisms for detecting unauthorized occupations and mandated inspection and grievance redressal systems. Section 23 of the 2002 Act designates highway land as Central Government property, imposing duties to maintain highways, prevent encroachments, and ensure safety. Noted deficiencies in enforcement, unclear grievance redressal processes via Rajmargyatra app and toll-free number, and non-compliance with Rule 3 of the 2004 Rules. Directions: (i) Highway Administration to file affidavit within three months detailing compliance with Rule 3 duties; (ii) Union of India and Highway Administration to widely publicize Rajmargyatra app through print, electronic, and social media within three months; (iii) MoRTH and NHAI to report on complaints received, actions taken, and creation of grievance redressal portal within three months; (iv) Highway Administration to issue detailed SOP for highway inspection teams; (v) Union Government to form surveillance teams with State Police for highway patrolling, with compliance reported within three months; (vi) Highway Administration to consider and implement Amicus Curiae suggestions, including inspection team circulars, surveillance teams, CCTV installation, and enhancements to Rajmargyatra app and grievance portal. (Paras 6, 14) Gyan Prakash v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 608 : 2025 INSC 753 : (2025) 7 SCC 189
Negligence in Motor Accident Cases - Reliability of Police Records - Fraud Allegations Unsubstantiated - Negligence is to be determined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Police records, including FIRs and charge sheets, are admissible evidence for determining negligence. The Tribunal and High Court were justified in relying on such documents to conclude that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. The appellant's contention that the respondents connived with the police to prepare a fraudulent charge sheet was rejected due to lack of evidence. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. ICIC Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Rajni Sahoo, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9
Pay and Recover Principle – Breach of Policy Conditions – Held, even where there is a breach of insurance conditions (such as overloading or carrying gratuitous passengers), the insurer can be directed to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owner– Insurance companies cannot evade their obligation to compensate victims in motor accident cases, even when there is a breach of a policy condition- Insurers retain the right to recover the compensation amount from the vehicle owner thereafter - Appeal allowed to the extent of applying the 'pay and recover' principle. [Relied on National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh 2004 3 SCC 297; Rama Bai v. Amit Minerals 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2067; Para 8-12] Akula Narayana v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1095 : 2025 INSC 1301
Principles of Evidence - Standard of proof in motor accident claim cases - In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability, not the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt used in criminal trials. (Para 13) Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : 2025 INSC 293
Right to Safe Pedestrian Infrastructure – Right to unobstructed, accessible, and disabled-friendly footpaths forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution – Supreme Court directs all States and Union Territories to formulate and implement guidelines for pedestrian safety, ensuring compliance with Indian Roads Congress standards and High Court directives – States and Union Territories to file compliance reports within two months – Union of India to submit policies on pedestrian rights within two months – National Road Safety Board under Section 215B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to be constituted within six months. (Paras 1 - 6) S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 643
Road Accidents – Issue - Whether the State and roadowning authorities are constitutionally and statutorily obligated to ensure pedestrian safety, enforce lane discipline, mandate helmet usage, and curb misuse of dazzling lights and unauthorized sirens to mitigate alarming rates of road fatalities in India - Supreme Court emphasized that safe, encroachment free and well-maintained footpaths constitute a judicially recognized right under Article 21 of the constitution – Held; The State, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and municipal authorities are duty-bound to ensure the construction, maintenance, and safety of pedestrian infrastructure in accordance with statutory mandates and standards laid down by the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Court noted that in 2023 alone, 1,72,890 lives were lost in road accidents—35,221 of them pedestrians- Footpaths are vital for pedestrians' right to safe mobility - Pedestrian deaths indicate grave governance and planning failure - The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) must strictly implement IRC Guidelines 103–2022 to make roads safe - The right to safe pedestrian access flows from precedents - Pedestrian safety is an essential part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. Non-compliance with prescribed road safety standards constitutes a violation of that right. State inaction regarding pedestrian infrastructure amounts to dereliction of constitutional duty, warranting judicial intervention and binding directives. [Relied on Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545; Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121; Sudhir Madan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2009) 17 SCC 332; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 614; Paras 7-14, 18-24] S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 976 : 2025 INSC 1189
Road Accidents - Protocols for Road Accident Victims - 8-Hour Work Limit for Drivers - The Supreme Court mandated all states and union territories to establish swift response protocols within six months to ensure immediate assistance for road accident victims, addressing delays in medical and rescue services. The Court highlighted the need for state-specific mechanisms to deliver timely aid. Additionally, under Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1961, the Court directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to work with states/UTs to enforce an 8-hour daily work limit for transport vehicle drivers to prevent fatigue-related accidents. The Ministry is tasked with holding meetings, considering penal measures for non-compliance, and submitting a consolidated compliance report by August 2025. (Paras 1 & 9) S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 487
Section 140, 166, 168 MV Act - Entitlement of a married daughter and an elderly mother to compensation in a motor accident claim as dependents of the deceased. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision denying compensation for loss of dependency to the married daughter, holding that she is presumed to be financially supported by her husband or his family unless proven otherwise. The married daughter is entitled only to compensation under Section 140 as a legal representative, not as a dependent. The Court set aside the High Court's order denying compensation to the deceased's elderly mother, aged approximately 70 years, who was solely dependent on the deceased with no independent income. Recognizing the duty of a child to maintain their parent in old age, the Court awarded ₹19,22,356/- as compensation to the elderly mother, considering her dependency and potential future hardship. Appeal partly allowed. Compensation denied to the married daughter for loss of dependency but granted to the elderly mother. [Para 13 - 20] Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 561 : 2025 INSC 675 : AIR 2025 SC 2929
Section 149(2) - Insurance - Breach of Policy Condition - Fake Driving Licence - Owner's Liability - 'Pay and Recover' Directions - Proof of Wilful Breach by Insured – Held, the owner of a vehicle, an employer, is not expected to verify the authenticity of the driving licence from the licensing authority; they can only rely on the licence produced by the prospective driver seeking employment - For the insurance company to avoid liability or get 'pay and recover' rights against the insured-owner on the ground of a fake driving licence, the insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured, meaning the insured had deliberately committed a breach in entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had a fake licence or that the owner did not employ due diligence at the time of entrustment - The mere production of the driving licence by the owner before the Court, or the driver keeping away from the witness box, does not lead to a valid inference of collusion between the employer and the employee - In the absence of pleading or substantiation that the owner allowed the driver to drive the vehicle knowing the licence was fake, or failed to employ due diligence in the driver's employment/entrustment, the High Court erred in issuing 'pay and recover' directions against the insured-owner - The insurance company must prove the insured's wilful breach of the policy condition (entrusting the vehicle to a driver without a valid licence) to be entitled to the right of recovery against the insured, even if the driver's licence is fake - Appeal allowed. [Relied on: IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 938; United India Insurance Company v. Lehru and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338; Paras 6-10] Hind Samachar Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 987 : 2025 INSC 1204
Section 149 (Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks) – 'Pay and Recover' Principle – Applicability when a vehicle deviates from the prescribed route as per its permit - Whether a deviation from the prescribed route in a transport vehicle's permit impacts the Insurance Company's liability for an accident occurring on the deviated route – Held, insurance companies cannot deny compensation to accident victims merely because the vehicle involved had deviated from its permitted route- Emphasising the social purpose of motor vehicle insurance, held that to deny compensation on such a technical ground would be “offensive to the sense of justice”- to deny compensation to the victim's dependents because the accident occurred outside the bounds of the permit would be offensive to the sense of justice, as the accident was not their fault; thus, the Insurance Company must pay - Since the contract of insurance operates within certain bounds, expecting the insurer to pay compensation for an incident clearly outside the bounds of the agreement (violation of the permit condition) would be unfair to the insurer - Balancing the need for compensation to the victim with the interests of the insurer, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order applying the 'pay and recover' principle in cases of deviation from the permitted route, finding it entirely justified and requiring no interference. [Relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342, Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (2019) 7 SCC 217, S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2013) 7 SCC 62; M/s Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 756; Paras 7 - 10] K. Nagendra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1044 : 2025 INSC 1270
Section 15(1) Proviso – Statutory Interpretation –Supreme Court clarified that if an application for renewal is made within one year after expiry, the renewal is effective only from the date of renewal and not retrospectively from the date of expiry - candidates whose licences had expired during the two-year period preceding the recruitment notification were not "continuously" holding a valid licence as required by the notification terms, even if they renewed them within the one-year statutory window – Appeal allowed. [Relied on The Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. v Shaanabasappa & Ors., SLP (Civil) Nos. 19830-19832 of 2022; Ram Babu Tiwari v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 165; Ishwar Chandra v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 650; Paras 22-24, 32, 33] Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1235 : 2025 INSC 1452
Section 15 (as amended by Act 32 of 2019) – Eligibility for Recruitment – Driving Licence Validity – The Supreme Court held that the 2019 Amendment to Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows for the renewal of a driving licence within one year before or after its expiry, does not create a "grace period" during which an expired licence remains valid for the purpose of professional eligibility- upheld the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board's interpretation of eligibility conditions for driver posts, ruling that candidates whose driving licences had expired and were renewed after a gap cannot be treated as having held a licence “continuously” for the prescribed period, even if the renewal was within one year of expiry. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1235 : 2025 INSC 1452
Section 162 - Implementation of - Scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the "golden hour" (the critical one-hour period following a traumatic injury) - Motor Vehicle Accident Fund - Directions Issued - Despite the provision being in force since April 1, 2022, no such scheme has been formulated. The Court emphasized the importance of the golden hour in saving lives and noted that delays in treatment due to financial or procedural reasons often lead to fatalities. The Court referred to Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286 which underscored the duty of hospitals to provide immediate medical aid to accident victims. The Court expressed concern over the lack of a scheme under Section 162(2) despite the creation of the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund under Section 164-B and the framing of related rules in 2022. The draft concept note submitted by the Central Government proposed a maximum treatment limit of ₹1,50,000 and coverage for only seven days, which the Court found inadequate to achieve the objective of saving lives during the golden hour. The Court noted that 1,026 claims under the hit-and-run compensation scheme were pending as of August 31, 2024, due to documentation deficiencies. The Central Government was directed to frame and implement the scheme under Section 162(2) by March 14, 2025, and submit an affidavit detailing the implementation plan by March 21, 2025. The General Insurance Council (GIC) was directed to process pending claims based on seven essential documents and to develop a portal for streamlined claim processing by March 14, 2025. The judgment reinforces the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and highlights the statutory obligation of the Central Government to ensure timely medical treatment for road accident victims during the golden hour. The Court's directions aim to address systemic delays and ensure the effective utilization of the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund. The Central Government is mandated to expedite the formulation of a scheme for cashless treatment during the golden hour, with strict compliance deadlines set by the Court. S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 36
Section 162 - Implementation of - Scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the "golden hour" (the critical one-hour period following a traumatic injury) - Statutory Provisions - Section 162 (1) requires insurance companies to provide cashless treatment for road accident victims, including during the golden hour. Section 162 (2) obligates the Central Government to create a scheme for cashless treatment during the golden hour, which may include provisions for a dedicated fund. Section 164B establishes the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund to provide compulsory insurance cover and compensation for road accident victims, including those involved in hit-and-run cases. S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 36
Section 163A, 166 MV Act – The Supreme Court referred Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385 to a larger bench for reconsideration. The precedent held that claimants cannot pursue compensation under Section 163A (no-fault liability) if their claim under Section 166 (fault-based liability) is dismissed. Recognizing the beneficial purpose of Section 163A, the Court questioned the precedent and referred the issue to the Chief Justice for constituting a three-judge bench. Section 163A, a social security provision, does not require proof of negligence, unlike Section 166. In this case, arising from a fatal accident, the Tribunal and High Court dismissed the claimants' Section 166 petition due to the driver's negligence and rejected their request to convert the claim to Section 163A, relying on Deepal Girishbhai Soni. The Supreme Court held that tribunals should permit conversion of claims to Section 163A in suitable cases and noted that no-fault liability could be enforced against the insurer as a third-party claim. The matter awaits reconsideration by a larger bench. (Paras 8 - 12) Valsamma Chacko v. M.A. Titto, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 271
Section 163A - Special provisions as to payment of compensation - No-fault liability - Supreme court referred to a larger bench the issue of whether a claim under Section 163A of MV Act, can be maintained by the owner/insurer of a vehicle, or their legal representatives, for death or injury arising from a motor vehicle accident – Held, Section 163A is a special provision with a non-obstante clause, overriding other provisions of MV Act, other laws in force, and any instrument having the force of law, including insurance policy terms that confine claims for an owner-driven to a fixed sum - Supreme Court distinguished claims under Section 163A (no-fault liability) from those under Section 166, where proof of negligence is necessary - Section 163A is a beneficial provision - Claims survive against the insurer even if the insured dies after the accident, the liability shifts to the owner's estate and the insurance company must pay if the policy is valid - Supreme Court expressed disagreement with previous two-judge bench decisions that restricted such claims to third party risks and indicated that section 163A should cover liability with respect to death of an owner or a driver, even if it goes beyond the statutory liability under section 147 or contractual liability in the insurance policy. [Paras 13-17] Wakia Afrin (Minor) v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 764 : 2025 INSC 919
Section 166 — Compensation— Multiplier— Application of Split Multiplier – Held, the practice of applying a split multiplier for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is generally foreign to the Act and is not to be used by Tribunals and/or Courts in the calculation of compensation - A split multiplier is only to be used in exceptional circumstances, and such circumstances must be recorded - The deceased's superannuation from service hardly qualifies as an 'out of the ordinary,' 'exceptional,' and 'cogent' reason to justify the use of a split multiplier, as retirement is a natural progression - The age of the deceased is the criterion to be utilized for the multiplier - The Supreme Court noted the divergent opinions on the application of the split multiplier, both intracourt and inter-court, which deprives Tribunals of guidance and creates a concerning situation for judicial discipline - The Supreme Court calculated the compensation based on the principles in Pranay Sethi Case, applying a multiplier of 11 for the age of 51 years, 15% future prospects, and conventional heads with 10% enhancement every three years - Appeal allowed. [Relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ((2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma v. DTC 2009 6 SCC 121; Paras 12-19] Preetha Krishnan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1073 : 2025 INSC 1293
Section 166 — Motor Accident Compensation — Denial of 'Future Prospects' Benefit – Held, deceased being a self-employed person in a foreign country (USA), the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 must be followed and applied to determine just compensation - As the deceased was 31 years old (below 40) at the time of the accident and was self-employed, an addition of 40% of the established income must be made towards future prospects as per the principles in Pranay Sethi - The multiplier of 16 applied by the High Court (having regard to the deceased's age of 31 years) was correctly applied and is in consonance with Pranay Sethi - The amounts awarded under conventional heads must be rectified as per Pranay Sethi - i. Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000/- (Revised from Rs. 10,000/-); ii. Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000/- (Revised from Rs. 25,000/-); iii. Loss of Consortium: Rs. 40,000/- per claimant. (Four dependents—wife, daughter, son, and parents —were considered for consortium, totalling Rs. 1,60,000/-) - The High Court's award of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and love and affection was set aside - Total compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,17,20,200/- to Rs. 1,60,15,280/-, granting an additional compensation of Rs. 42,95,080/- with 6% interest. [Relied on National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680; Paras 4-6] Kulwinder Kaur v. Prashant Sharma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1052 : 2025 INSC 950
Section 2(34) - Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 (A.P. Act, 1963) - Section 3(1) - Andhra Pradesh Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963 - Rule 12A - Section 3(1) levies tax on every motor vehicle 'used or kept for use, in a public place in the State' - Expression 'in a public place' not only describes but also limits the words 'used' and 'kept for use' - The liability to pay tax is not on ownership or registration, but on the use or keeping for use in a 'public place' - 'Public place' is a road, street, way or other place to which the public have a right of access – Held, if the public has no right of access to a place, it is not a 'public place' - The liability to pay tax under Section 3(1) of the A.P. Act, 1963, is contingent on the vehicle being used or kept for use in a 'public place' - A motor vehicle could not be subjected to tax for the period it was exclusively used or kept within the restricted premises, even if intimation of non-use was not given under Rule 12A - The vehicles operating exclusively within the enclosed premises of a factory or plant are not liable to pay motor vehicle tax, as such areas do not constitute a 'public place' - Motor Vehicle tax is compensatory in nature - It has a direct nexus with the end use - If a motor vehicle is not used in a 'public place' or not kept for use in a 'public place' then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure, therefore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period - Appeal allowed. [Paras 28, 29, 31, 33, 45-50] Tarachand Logistic Solutions v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 852 : 2025 INSC 1052
The Supreme Court issued key directions to ensure safety - i. Pedestrian Safety Audits: NHAI and road-owning agencies in 50 major cities to audit existing footpaths and prioritize vulnerable areas; ii. Compliance with IRC Guidelines: All pedestrian crossings to conform to IRC 103-2022 standards; iii. Encroachments: Phased removal of obstruction from footpaths with GIS monitoring; iv. Foot Overbridges & Subways: Audits on safety aspects—lighting, CCTV, and panic alert systems; v. High-Risk Zones: Application of data to identify accident-prone pedestrian stretches—especially near schools, hospitals, and transit zones; vi. Online Grievance System: Municipal and highway authorities to create complaint portals for encroachments and maintenance lapses; vii. Helmet Enforcement: States and UTs directed to ensure mandatory wearing of helmets under Sections 128–129 and 194-D of the Motor Vehicles Act; viii. Lane Discipline: Curb wrong-lane driving through automated cameras and fines; ix. Dazzling Lights & Unauthorized Hooters: Ban on non-compliant LED beams, illegal sirens, and strobes; penalties and awareness campaigns mandated; x. Framing of State Rules: States and UTs to frame rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the MV Act within six months. [Para 35] S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 976 : 2025 INSC 1189
Tribunal and High Court failed to consider the appellant's monthly income while calculating compensation - When a minor child suffers a permanent disability, compensation for the loss of income should be based on, at minimum, the minimum wages of a skilled worker in the relevant state at the time of the accident - Minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat in 2012 (the year of accident) was Rs. 227.85 per days, which rounds to a monthly income of Rs. 6,836, added 40% towards future prospects and applied multiplier of 18 - Upheld the High Court's finding that the appellant's permanent functional disability was 90% - When a child is involved in an accident, the loss of income must be calculated using the minimum wages for a skilled worker in that state - Directed that if a claimant fails to provide proof of income, the opposing party, specifically the insurance company, is obligated to provide the tribunal with the applicable minimum wage as issued by the government - This directive be distributed to all Motor Accident Claim Tribunals via the Registrar Generals of the High Courts - Total compensation of Rs. 35,90,489/- is to be paid with 9% interest p.a. from the date of claim petition - Appeal allowed. [Paras 9-16] Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871 : 2025 INSC 1070