The Supreme Court held that children of a person killed in a motor accident are entitled to parental consortium, faulting the Tribunal and High Court for omitting it, and enhanced the compensation.
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 Karnataka High Court held that religious institutions can claim compensation for a Mathadipati’s death in accidents. Expanding dependency scope, the court recognised institutions reliant on spiritual heads, affirming their role in administration and continuity beyond personal income considerations.
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether insurance companies must pay no-fault compensation under Section 163A of the MV Act for the vehicle owner’s death, even without a third-party claim. The case arose from a minor’s plea after losing her parents in a solo accident.
The Bombay High Court ruled that mediclaim payments cannot be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. This affirms that compensation for accidents is a statutory right, while mediclaim is based on a separate contractual agreement, ensuring victims receive full compensation without unfair deductions based on insurance payouts.
The Supreme Court raised the compensation for a motor accident victim to Rs. 48,00,000, criticizing the High Court for inadequately assessing damages beyond loss of income. The Court emphasized fair compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses while acknowledging that money cannot replace a lost life, ensuring justice for the victim’s permanent disability.