Supreme Court: No Motor Accident Compensation For Murder Inside Vehicle

 We are of the view that even on this lighter standard, there

is no causal link that has been established. A perusal of the

judgments of the Courts below in a sense assume that the injuries

suffered by the deceased took place while Dilip and Anand were

in the car. How such a conclusion came about, is best known to

them. The evidence-on-record does not point to any forensic

proof having been recovered from the car for example - blood,

skin cells, hair etc. Neither it is anybody’s case that Dilip’s car is

involved in any collision. All that has been said is that the injuries sustained by Anand were by hard and blunt objects. Now true it is that the claimants need not establish the particular manner in which injuries have been sustained by the injured or the deceased but that does not mean that simply because there was a car somehow involved in a chain of circumstances that led to his death, the provisions of MVA would apply. Some link whatsoever between the car, and the death has to be established.

{Para 13}

14. Pursuant to the aforesaid discussion, there is an alleged

accidental murder and there is a motor vehicle, but the

relationship between the two specifically involving a motor

vehicle has not been established. There cannot be, consequently,

any liability under the MVA. Judgments of the Courts below are

set aside. The appeals are allowed. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.9002-03 of 2026)

DILIP AGARWAL Vs RAJSHRI AGARWAL & ORS.

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Dated: July 22, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 736.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation if motor accident is done by driver who is minor child?

Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits driving of a vehicle by any person under the age of eighteen years in any public place. Section 5 of the Act imposes a statutory responsibility upon the owners of the motor vehicles not to cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 to drive the vehicle. {Para 15}

16. The vehicle in question admittedly was being driven by Karan Arora who was aged about fifteen years. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, in our opinion, rightly held that Karan Arora did not hold any valid licence on the date of accident, namely 5.2.1997.

17. The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court did not put unto themselves a correct question of law. They proceeded on a wrong premise that it was for the Insurance Company to prove breach of conditions of the contract of insurance.

18. The High Court did not advert to itself the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus misdirected itself in law.

19. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj   MANU/SC/0685/2008 : AIR2008SC1408 wherein upon taking into consideration a large number of decisions, it was held that the Insurance Company was not liable.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2008 

Decided On: 24.09.2008

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Citation: 2008 INSC 1087,MANU/SC/8090/2008,2009 AIR SC 24.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions not constitute sufficient ground to deny benefit of coverage of insurance to third parties

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/0021/2004 : AIR2004SC1531 this Court held:

88. Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description.

89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in Sub-section (2) of the said section. {Para 21}

22. It was furthermore observed:

90. We have construed and determined the scope of Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2008 

Decided On: 24.09.2008

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Citation: 2008 INSC 1087,MANU/SC/8090/2008,2009 AIR SC 24.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is the duty of insured if Insurance company requires him to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority?

In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer Under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh's case (supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1999-2000 of 2020

Decided On: 04.03.2020

Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: Krishna Murari, J.

Citation: 2020 INSC 263,MANU/SC/0267/2020,AIR 2020 SC 1193,AIR Online 2020 SC 285.

Print Page

Supreme Court Lays Down Law On Using ITRs in Motor Accident Claims To Assess Victim's Income

 In the considered view of this Court, there can be no hard and fast formula for computing the annual income of a deceased person/claimant. ITRs being a statutory document are an important reference point when it comes to assessing one's income, for the purposes of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. {Para 17}

18. We find force in the submission put forth by Mr. J.R. Midha, learned Senior Counsel. There must be a bifurcation made between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals when it comes to assessment of annual income. In our view, for salaried individuals, only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary. The reason for considering only the preceding year is that the financial impact of promotions is significant and may be reflected in the ITR for only that year. A situation may also arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not have completed a year in the promoted position before the accident or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such cases the Court concerned shall take reference to the promotion letter and other corroboratory financial statements.

19. When it comes to self-employed/individuals carrying out their own business, in our view, the average of the income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income from their business. There may also be a scenario where only one or two ITRs have been filed. Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in these professions, surrounding circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. These would include:

a) The nature of the business (including geographic location, category etc.);

b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death on the business;

c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain businesses are capital intensive at the outset and are profitable at scale/in the future);

d) Negative income (certain businesses may require losses in the initial years, which may not reflect the true financial standing); and

e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business.

20. The date when the ITRs are filed would also become a relevant consideration, as there may be scenarios where inflated income is showcased after death/injury. In these circumstances, the surrounding factors of the business would become more relevant. However, if sufficiently supported by financial statements, such ITRs may also be taken into consideration.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8735 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024)

Decided On: 01.07.2026

Rashmirekha Tripathy and Ors. Vs. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 661,MANU/SC/0663/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Insurance Company should invoke principle of pay and recover if driver of vehicle carrying hazardous goods was not having proper license to drive that vehicle

 In this case, the High Court had set aside the

award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

stating that respondent No. 2, at the relevant time,

was not having a proper license to drive the vehicle

carrying hazardous goods and, in such circumstances,

the insurance company cannot be fastened with the

liability of payment of the award amount.

The only issue for consideration is as to

whether the High Court was right in refusing to adopt

the usual procedure of pay and recover in cases of

motor accident claims.

Considering the facts of the case, we are of the

view that the High Court should have asked the

respondent No.1 - Insurance Company to pay the

appellants – claimants, with liberty to recover it

from respondent No. 2 – owner of the vehicle which

caused the accident in the execution proceedings.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL [C] NO. /2025

[@ SLP [C] NO.3033/2024]

MANTU MAHATO & ORS. Vs THE NATIONAL INSURANCE  COMPANY LTD. & ANR. 

Dated: FEBRUARY 03, 2025.

Print Page

Madras HC: Under which circumstances, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation?

 As far as the present case is concerned, it is the categorical evidence of R.W.2 that the driver of the offending lorry was not possessing the licence to drive the transport vehicle or the hazardous vehicle and even the Ex.R.2-xerox copy of badge register refers to No. 11134/81307 standing in the name T.G.Sundarajan, S/o.Gopal Mesthray, No. 4, 7th Cross Street, Devi Karumari Nagar, Madras -42. Indeed, in Ex.R.1 Investigator's Report the driver of the lorry was authorised to drive light motor vehicles and from 30.10.1991 was authorised to drive heavy goods vehicle also and the same was renewed from 28.06.1995. Suffice it to point out for this Court that the offending lorry driver Elayasamy was not in possession of a licence/endorsement to drive the hazardous goods vehicle and that he was only possessed of a licence to drive heavy goods vehicle with effect from 30.10.1991 and therefore, there was a violation of policy condition and as such, the Tribunal was quite correct in exonerating the second respondent/Insurance Company from its liability to pay and moreover, the appellants/petitioners have not proved that the driver Elayasamy had the valid licence in regard to the type of vehicle viz., hazardous vehicle involved in the accident and consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. {Para 16}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.M.A. (NPD) No. 10 of 2004

Decided On: 11.06.2009

Nagamani and Ors. Vs. Singaravelu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Venugopal, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/1293/2009

Print Page

J & K HC: if driver of offending vehicle has no endorsement permitting him to drive vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation

It is, thus, clear that the owner was aware of the nature of licence possessed by the driver engaged by him and also he was aware of the fact that on the driving licence of the driver, there was no such endorsement of carrying dangerous and hazardous goods.

12. Learned Tribunal seems to have acted too liberally in taking the view that the driver of the offending vehicle was competent to drive gas tanker for which he had undergone training. It is not a case of merely driving a vehicle of the type other than the one for which licence had been issued. It is rather a case of driving a special type of vehicle, which is meant for carrying dangerous and hazardous gas. Bringing out vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods on public places involves a great element of risk to life and property of public at large. Owners of such vehicles must exercise special care to ensure that such vehicles are entrusted for driving and given in the charge of persons, who are duly trained and specifically authorized to take charge of such vehicles. No lenient view is justified if breach in this regard is proved by the insurer.

13. In my considered view, the assertion of learned counsel appearing for the insurance company regarding the fact that there was no endorsement on the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle carrying hazardous substance is legally tenable inasmuch as it is not a case of driving a vehicle of a type other than for which licence has been issued. Here the breach relates not to the type of vehicle but to the kind of goods for which the vehicle is meant for.

14. Viewed thus, appeal succeeds and the appellant-insurance company cannot be saddled with liability of indemnifying the owner (insured).

15. For all that has been said and discussed above, appeal is allowed to the extent of exonerating the appellant-insurance company from satisfying the award. Award and judgment rendered by the learned tribunal is modified by providing that the award shall be satisfied by the owner of the offending tanker-respondent No. 2.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

CIMA No. 13/2010 and CMP No. 14/2010

Decided On: 24.04.2017

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subash Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tashi Rabstan, J.

Citation: MANU/JK/0587/2017, 2018 ACJ 1250

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Claimant Can't Seek Compensation From Offending Vehicle's Insurer If Already Received From Own Insurance Company

It is relevant to note that the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,41,516/- towards property damage from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. The claimant was examined as PW1. In the cross examination, he states that he has received the entire amount towards the damage of the property from his Insurance company. Admittedly, damaged vehicle was insured with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company and the claimant has received the full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur. In the absence of any material to show that the claim paid by his Insurance Company represented a part only of the total damage, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim for any further payment. I, therefore, see no merit in the contention of the claimant that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the damaged property.

Furthermore, in HARKHU BAI's case, the Division Bench has held that if the claimant has received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur, he cannot claim further payment from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. As already noted above, in the present case, the claimant has received the amount from his Insurance Company as full and final settlement. Hence, he cannot claim further payment from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. Hence, the contention regarding tortuous liability must necessarily fail.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 5788 of 2013 (MV-DM)

Decided On: 22.04.2024

Kumarvel Janakiram Vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jyothi Mulimani, J.

Citation: 2024:KHC:15862,MANU/KA/1798/2024

Print Page

Supreme Court: Injury caused Due To felling of Tree branch On Stationary Vehicle Not 'Motor Accident'; Can't Lodge MACT Claim

 In the context of motor accidents the expressions "caused by" and "arising out of" are often used in statutes. Although both these expressions imply a causal relationship between the accident resulting in injury and the use of the motor vehicle but they differ in the degree of proximity of such relationship. This distinction has been lucidly brought out in the decision of the High Court of Australia in Government Insurance Office of N.S.W. v. R.J. Green case [(1965) 114 CLR 437], wherein Lord Barwick, C.J. has stated : (CLR p. 433)

Bearing in mind the general purpose of the Act I think the expression 'arising out of must be taken to require a less proximate relationship of the injury to the relevant use of the vehicle than is required to satisfy the words 'caused by'. It may be that an association of the injury with the use of the vehicle while it cannot be said that that use was causally related to the injury may yet be enough to satisfy the expression 'arise out of' as used in the Act and in the policy. {Para 34}

35. In the same case, Windeyer, J. has observed as under : (CLR p. 447)

The words 'injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle' postulate a causal relationship between the use of the vehicle and the injury. 'Caused by' connotes a 'direct'or 'proximate' relationship of cause and effect. 'Arising out of extends this to a result that is less immediate; but it still carries a sense of consequence.

13. In view of the stated liberal interpretation of this term, will the presence of the Respondent in the auto rickshaw suffice as 'use'. In ordinary circumstances, it probably would have. But take for instance a scenario where the Respondent was a pedestrian and stood near or under the tree in an attempt to take shelter from the heavy rain and now the branch falls on him. This is an entirely likely scenario. In other words, the motor vehicle itself does not play an active role in the accident. It is not part of the proximate cause of the accident. For that reason, a claim Under Section 166 specifically may not be appropriate.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8455 of 2026 

Decided On: 11.06.2026

The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Vs. K.K. Umesh Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation:2026 INSC 637, MANU/SC/0627/2026

Print Page

Recognizing Homemakers as Nation Builders, Supreme Court Quantifies Their Monthly Contribution at ₹30,000 for Motor Accident Compensation

Loss Of Domestic Care: An Additional Head

20. It is in these circumstances, that we deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage accrued against the homemaker on a calculation of compensation on the basis of conservatively computed notional income and while being acutely aware of the dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium as also the disposition towards uniformity, that for the three major heads (the homemaker’s contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased) discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under the head of ‘loss of domestic care’, provided that all three of these heads are met in the given case. This determination shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years. It may be clearly stated that this amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e., loss of domestic care is to be taken as a ‘standin’ (basic minimum monthly income) for monthly income in those cases where the homemaker does not have an input into the house, in strictly conventional, monetary terms. In those cases where the homemaker is part of the workforce, the component of loss of domestic care shall be in addition to the monthly income as may be proved before the Tribunal/Courts.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO……………………… OF 2026

(@Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.33915 of 2025)

SHISHU PAL @ SHISH RAM & ORS. Vs SURJEET & ORS.

Author: SANJAY KAROL J.,

Dated: June 11, 2026

Citation:  2026 INSC 634

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor Accident Claim: No Deduction Of Employer-Provided Group Insurance Benefits From Compensation

  In view of the foregoing discussion, and in light of the settled principles laid down by this Court in Helen C. Rebello(Supra), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Sebastiani Lakra (Supra), It is clear that amounts received by the dependants of the deceased under employer-provided group insurance or other contractual or social security benefits cannot be treated as "pecuniary advantages" liable to be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such benefits arise out of an independent contractual relationship and lack the requisite nexus with the statutory compensation payable for death in a motor vehicle accident. The principle of balancing loss and gain cannot therefore be invoked to diminish the statutory entitlement of the claimants to just compensation. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5490-5491 of 2025 and 5492-5493 of 2025

Decided On: 16.03.2026

The Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. P. Chandramouli and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 241, MANU/SC/0233/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Non impleadment of driver in motor accident claim petition is not fatal

In Civil Appeal NO'S. 5492-5493 Appellant pointed out certain procedural lapses particularly for not adding driver as a party. Both tribunal and High court not accepted the said contention. This Court in Rajo Devi and Anr. Etc. v. Manjeet Kaur and Ors.   MANU/SC/0741/2025 : 2025:INSC:741 speaking through one of us (P.B Varale J) observed thus "it must be kept in mind that the provision of providing compensation to the injured/dependants in accident cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial provision to enhance social justice. Accordingly, the rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in such cases is summary in nature". {Para 11}

12. In view of the proposition laid down in above the tribunal and the High court rightly discarded procedural objection of Appellant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5490-5491 of 2025 and 5492-5493 of 2025

Decided On: 16.03.2026

The Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. P. Chandramouli and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 241, MANU/SC/0233/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Notional income of permanently disabled child is to be determined on the basis of the minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman in the State

 Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the documentary material on record, we are of the considered view that the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court deserves enhancement. The Appellant was aged fourteen years when the accident took place and as a result of the same has suffered 100% permanent disability. The High Court has considered the notional annual income as ` 30,000/-. This amount is on a lower side. The notional income would have to be determined on the basis of the minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman in the State of Rajasthan in 2016. Such minimum wages were ` 5,746/- per month. Taking the monthly notional income at ` 5,800/-, the annual income would be ` 69,600/-. Future prospects at 40% would make the annual income as ` 97,440/-. On the basis of the age of the Appellant, multiplier of 18 has been rightly applied. On that basis, the loss of income would come to ` 17,53,920/-. {Para 8}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7055 of 2026 

Decided On: 06.05.2026

Hansraj Vs. Mukesh Nath and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 454,MANU/SC/0440/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: In cases involving a child who has suffered injury or died, the loss of income must be computed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State

For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's interference, applying well-established principles of law. {Para 15}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025 

Decided On: 08.08.2025

Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Citation: 2025INSC 1070,MANU/SC/1796/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor Accident Claims | If Claimant Doesn't Produce Income Proof, Insurer Must Furnish Applicable Minimum Wages Notification

 We may also observe that, in general, i.e., accidents involving adults, we are often confronted with situations where the Minimum Wage Data is not readily available and every so often, the question that has been made up to this Court hinges only on the calculation of income. In that view of the matter and in the hope of reducing the claimants need to file appeals to this Court or even the High Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that in cases where the claimant has failed to furnish appropriate details of income or adequate proof thereof, it shall be the responsibility and obligation of the contesting party, more particularly the insurance company to furnish before the Tribunal the applicable minimum wage as duly issued by the concerned government.{Para 16}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025 

Decided On: 08.08.2025

Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Citation: 2025INSC 1070,MANU/SC/1796/2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether Motor accident claim tribunal should allow amendment of claim petition from S 166 of MV Act to S 163A of MV Act if income of petitioner exceeds 40000/ per annum?

 The Court is very much conscious of the fact that the merits of the proposed amendment cannot be looked into. The fact, however, remains that no fruitful purpose would be served by granting alternative prayer. Even this Court takes his petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and proceed to grant relief, the petitioner would not be entitled to any compensation therein in view of his income being more than double the ceiling of Rs. 40,000/- per annum at the relevant time.

9. Be that as it may. In view of the cap of income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum for grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and the petitioner's annual income from salary being Rs. 84,000/- per annum, plus Rs. 24,000/- per annum as an agricultural income in the year 1997, the petitioner would not be entitled to prefer a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The alternative prayer cannot be considered favorably.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 69 of 2007

Decided On: 08.02.2022

Bhausaheb Vs. Shamrao N. Kulat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.G. Avachat, J.

Citation: 2022 ACJ 2105,MANU/MH/0371/2022

Print Page

Himachal Pradesh HC: Owner of goods vehicle is liable to pay compensation regarding death or injury of gratuitous passenger travelling in his vehicle

The differentiation in two situations can be marked for the reason that in the former case of non-existence or non-holding of the driving license there still is a subsisting contract of insurance covering the risk of third party but in the other there is no contract covering the risk as no premium has been charged or paid for person not covered under the categories defined under section 147 of the Act or by a special contract.

32. Thus, the contention so raised merits rejection for the reason; firstly that there is no provision in the Act which allows the insurer to pay in the first instance and recover later from the insured where the claim relates to gratuitous passenger in a Goods Carriage Vehicle and secondly in view of the law settled in New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani, MANU/SC/1105/2002 : 2002:INSC:513 : 2003 ACJ (1), National Insurance Co. Vs. Baljeet Kaur, MANU/SC/0009/2004 : 2004:INSC:19 : 2004 ACJ 428. Both these judgments by three judges' benches expounded the law with respect to liability of insurer to indemnify the insured in respect of claims arising out of death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger in a Goods carriage Vehicle and held in favour of insurer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni in MANU/SC/1418/2013 : (2018) 9 SCC 657 has kept the question of law open on the issue whether the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can direct the insurer to pay and recover, where the liability otherwise does not arise in case of gratuitous passenger. This court while expressing above view has drawn support from judgment passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aandi reported in MANU/TN/6503/2018 : 2019 ACJ 1975.

33. In view of above discussion, FAO No. 448 of 2018 is allowed. It is held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. The owner Amba Dutt is held liable to satisfy the award. The quantum of award is also modified to the extent as held above.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

FAO No. 448 of 2018 and FAO No. 34 of 2019

Decided On: 30.04.2025

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sheru and Ors.

Author: Satyen Vaidya, J.

 Citation: 2025:HHC:11512,MANU/HP/0601/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Legal heirs of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle are not entitled to get compensation from insurance Company

It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. {Para 20}

21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2004 

Decided On: 06.01.2004

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.N. Khare, C.J., S.B. Sinha and A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.

Author: V.N. Khare, C.J.

Citation: AIR 2004 SC 1340,MANU / SC / 0009 / 2004,( 2004 ) 2 SCC 1,[ 2004 ] 1 SCR 274.

Print Page

Sikkim HC: The Motor accident claim tribunal can not grant Future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads in petition U/S 163A of Motor vehicle Act

 In light of all the foregoing discussions, we hold that

under Section 163A Future prospects or any other additional

non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim

Petition under Section 163A of the M. V. Act is to be strictly

computed on the structured formula provided in the Second

Schedule to the Act. The reference stands answered

accordingly. {Para 20}

 THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAC App. No.10 of 2018

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs  Dilu Rai and Others

DIVISION BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE

Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

DATED : 4th APRIL, 2022.

Print Page