The Bombay High Court held that factual findings of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot be challenged through certiorari merely alleging insufficient evidence. Reappreciation of evidence lies outside writ jurisdiction, which must operate within strict limits under Article 226.
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.
On January 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India upheld a compensation award of Rs 26.77 lakh to Udayanath Sahoo’s family after a fatal accident in 2009. The court confirmed that negligence in motor accident cases is determined by “preponderance of probabilities,” dismissing ICICI Lombard’s appeal against the tribunal’s findings.