Motor Vehicles

In this case there was enhancement in compensation under heads “future loss of earning” and “attendant charges” by applying multiplier method in case of 100% permanent disability. Held, the relevant factors include the prolonged hospitalization and regular medical assistance, nature of the injuries sustained, the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering. Simultaneously,

Applying split multiplier i.e. one multiplier up to date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement of deceased is not permissible. Only one multiplier is to be applied keeping in view age of the deceased based on principles laid down by the Supreme Court. [R. Valli v. T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 107

The duties of the insured and insurer to disclose all material facts at contract formation/pre-contract stage or renewal stage, held, include the duty of the insurer or its agent to notify the insured of any material change(s) in the policy terms at the pre-contract or renewal stage. Thus, held, insurer cannot contend that the insured

Principle of uberrimae fidei i.e. principle of utmost good faith, held, imposes meaningful reciprocal duties owed by the insured to the insurer and vice versa. That is to say, just as the insured has a duty to disclose all material facts, the insurer must also inform the insured about the terms and conditions of the

In absence of documentary evidence on record, some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time, held, the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of deceased, same

Fixation of notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. under Sch. II for computing compensation in this case of non-earning family member (minor aged 7 yrs), held, unjust and unreasonable due to of higher cost of living since 1994 when Rs 15,000 was fixed as the notional income under Sch. II for non-earning members. It is

Insurance policy covered risk of third parties including unnamed passengers, in respect of which premium was duly paid. Another clause covered “employees” such as driver and cleaner upon payment of additional premium, but such additional premium not paid in respect of this “employees” clause. While determining that deceased if was an “employee” of assured so

The Tribunal by recording a finding that the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, applied the multiplier of 13 and future prospects at 30% as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121. The High Court did not interfere with the multiplier but committed an

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal arrived at the sum of Rs 11,66,800 as total compensation payable after deducting 10% of the compensation on account of contributory negligence in as much as there were 3 persons on the motorcycle when a speeding car hit it. The employer of the victim was examined for confirmation on salary

The age of the deceased was 35 years and he left behind five dependents, the deduction towards his personal expenditure would be 1/4th as per judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 12 and the Multiplier adopted by the MACT and High Court at 16 is appropriate. Held that the