Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Motor Vehicles Act

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...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Motor Vehicles Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags