The Supreme Court held that injuries caused by a falling tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw do not automatically qualify as a motor vehicle accident. However, invoking Article 142, the Court enhanced compensation for the claimant, emphasizing that a proximate connection between the vehicle and accident is necessary.
The Supreme Court held that loss of a wife’s domestic care constitutes an independent head of compensation in motor accident claims. Granting enhanced compensation to a widower, the Court recognised homemakers’ invaluable contribution and observed that they should be regarded as “nation-builders” in society.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that employer-provided group insurance and other contractual or social security benefits received by a deceased person’s family cannot reduce compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding such benefits are independent of statutory accident compensation claims.
The Allahabad High Court ruled an unborn child beyond five months’ gestation is a “person” under law, allowing separate compensation. Justice Prashant Kumar issued the order in a Railway Claims Tribunal appeal.
The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which imposed a six-month limit for filing accident claims. Tribunals and High Courts have been directed not to reject petitions solely due to delay.
The Supreme Court has ruled that insurance companies cannot deny accident compensation merely because a vehicle deviated from its permitted route, emphasizing that victims must be protected and insurers must fulfill their responsibility first.
