Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: All India High Courts Cases 2022

LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here are some important decisions relating to road accidents and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:1. Motor Accident Claim- Fixing 15K As Notional Income Per Annum For Non-Earning Member Is Unreasonable: Allahabad HCCase title - Roop Lal and Anr v. Suresh Kumar Yadav and 2 Ors.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 13Referring to a Supreme Court's Judgment delivered in 2021, the High Court observed that fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for a family's non-earning members is not just and reasonable.The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi was hearing an appeal filed by the parents of a 7-year-old deceased boy, seeking enhancement of quantum, against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order awarding Rs.1,80,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.2. Motor Accident Claim- Fixing 15K As Notional Income Per Annum For Non-Earning Member Is Unreasonable: Allahabad HCCase title - Roop Lal and Anr v. Suresh Kumar Yadav and 2 Ors.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 13Referring to a Supreme Court's Judgment delivered in 2021, the High Court observed that fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for a family's non-earning members is not just and reasonable.The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi was hearing an appeal filed by the parents of a 7-year-old deceased boy, seeking enhancement of quantum, against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order awarding Rs.1,80,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.3. Motor Accident- Insurer Not Absolved From Paying Damages Merely Because Erring Driver Had Fake Driving Licence: Allahabad HCCase title - National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kewal Krishna Arora And OthersCase citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 47In a motor accident death claim case, the High Court recently observed the insurance company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability only on the ground that the person driving the vehicle, which caused the accident of the deceased, was not duly licensed at the time of the accident.Referring to a 2003 ruling of the Apex Court (United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lehru and others), the bench of Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma observed that it was not expected of the employer to verify the genuineness of a driving license from the issuing authority at the time of employment.4. 'Sympathetic View Required When Such Great Loss Of Body Part': Allahabad High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation To Child Who Lost One KidneyCase Title: Prabhat Kumar And Others vs Dheeraj And OthersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 119The Allahabad High Court enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to a minor (as he then was), who lost one kidney and suffered liver damage on being hit by a motorcycle while driving a moped.Justice Ajai Tyagi said,"The learned tribunal has not taken sympathetic view which is required by tribunal in such matters when the child has suffered such a great loss of body part. Theories of just compensation has also been overlooked by the tribunal while adjudicating this matter, just because no disability or injury report was filed."5. Motor Accident Claim: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakhs Cost On Insurance Co. For 'Keeping Litigation Alive' For 20 YrsCase title - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Its Divisional Manager v. Motor Accident Claim TribunalCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 121The Allahabad High Court imposed Rupees Five Lakhs on an insurance company while noting that it kept the litigation alive for almost 20 years in connection with a Motor Accident Claims case.The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh imposed the exemplary cost on the Insurance Company as they made the complainant (whose husband died in a motor accident in the year 1999) and her five minor children suffer beyond imagination.6. Motor Accident Claim| 'Future Prospects' Ought To Be Allowed For Those With Notional Income: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mulchand Dhanji Shah & Anr. V. Mr. Noordam Iraj Ahmad & Ors.Case No: First Appeal No. 1005/2019 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 11The Bombay High Court ruled that lack of evidence supporting the income of the deceased does not justify ascertaining notional income at the minimum tier of wage in determining compensation.It partly allowed an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in an appeal against the compensation awarded to kin of a deceased of a motor accident.7. Motor Accident Compensation: Claimant Entitled To Future Loss Of Income Proportionate To Extent Of Disability Though There Is No Total Loss Of Income: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Hareshwar Harishchandra Mistry v Pravin B. NayakCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 19The Bombay High Court held that while determining the compensation that the applicant would be entitled to on account of loss of future earnings, even if the applicant has ...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: All India High Courts Cases 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags