A Karnataka auto-rickshaw driver Sharath approached the Supreme Court challenging his conviction under IPC Sections 279 and 304-A in a fatal accident case. The Bench discussed victim compensation, observing that a life lost cannot be valued cheaply and stressed the seriousness of the loss.
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 set aside the conviction of a KSRTC bus driver, holding that following a conductor’s signal to move the vehicle cannot by itself amount to criminal negligence. The Court ruled that a driver acting on the conductor’s instructions performs a normal duty and cannot be faulted without evidence of recklessness.
