Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence of income tax or sales tax return while assessing compensation in motor accident claim petition?

 As far as the income is concerned, we agree with the High Court that the Tribunal had entered into mere surmises and conjectures to decline adoption of the income as per the income tax returns. In this context, we have to notice that the registration of the firm of the claimant took place on 06.03.2006 and the income tax returns produced are also for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 relatable to the financial years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 which are prior to the accident which occurred on 09.04.2007. It cannot be said that the claimant apprehended an accident and got registration of a firm and filed his income tax returns two years prior to the accident. Further, the claimant had also produced sales tax returns which was also rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no taxable profits in the said year. Insofar as the levy of sales tax is concerned, the levy is on the sales and not on the profits. The finding of the Tribunal also is that in the first year, there was no tax payable and hence there was no profits or income. The exemption from tax is only because the purchase and sales did not exceed the taxable value. The sale proceeds being not within the taxable limit is not an indication of the profit accrued, or the income received from the business which is reflected in the income tax returns. On the above reasoning, we have to accept the income tax returns for the financial year 2007-2008 in which the total gross income is seen as Rs. 1,96,000/- out of which the tax of Rs. 4,641/- has to be deducted. The income, hence, has to be assessed at Rs. 1,91,000/-.  {Para 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 12098-12099 of 2024

Anoop Maheshwari Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1076, MANU/SC/1233/2025

Decided On: 04.09.2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Medical board's certificate can be accepted in motor accident claim petition even without a witness being examined

 Insofar as the disability is concerned, we have no doubt that the medical board's certificate can be accepted, even without a witness being examined. {Para 7}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 12098-12099 of 2024

Anoop Maheshwari Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1076, MANU/SC/1233/2025

Decided On: 04.09.2025.

Print Page

When family members are taking care of permanently disabled person in Motor accident claim petition, Supreme Court has granted Rs one lakh towards attendant charges

 In this regard, we have perused the statement of the Appellant's mother (PW-3). As per her statement, initially they had engaged an attendant at ` 6,000 per month. However, he had left his services about a month before the mother was cross-examined on 23rd September, 2016. Further, the Appellant's father works as a priest and have a meagre monthly income. Thus, it is the Appellant's mother and other family members who are taking care of him. Considering the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, a lump sum amount of ` 1,00,000/- is reasonable and deserves to be awarded to the Appellant on account of future attendant charges. {Para 17}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11100 of 2024.

Decided On: 15.10.2024

Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.

Author: Rajesh Bindal, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 777, MANU/SC/1109/2024.

Print Page

Whether legal heirs have right to file fresh motor accident claim petition after death of injured even though petition filed by him for injury claim is pending?

Here in this case, the claimants, as legal heirs and representatives, have filed a subsequent claim petition while the original was still pending, the right to sue arose on the death of the original claimant and survived on the date when subsequent claim petition was filed. As was held in the case of Surpal Singh (supra), maxim action personalis mortiur cum persona cannot be imported to defeat the purpose and the object of a social welfare legislation of the M.V. Act to give advantage to the wrong doer. Once the status of the claimants as legal heirs or legal representatives are conceded and acknowledged, to deny benefit of compensation, on the ground that injury was personal to the claimant, will be giving a premium to the wrong committed, which would itself defeat the very purpose and object of the legislation. The subsequent petition was filed at the time when the original petition was yet pending. It is not the case that the original petition filed by the original injured came to be dismissed as abated. The cause of action still survived on the day when MACP no.292/17 was filed. The only diversion made by the petitioners is filing of MACP no.292/17 by paying extra Court fees. Thus, the registration number of the petition stood to be different than that of the original and subsequently, the original petition was withdrawn. So filing of another petition on the cause of action, which arose on the death of the injured would be maintainable under Section 166(1). {Para 23}

(c) of the M.V. Act.

 GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Jiteshkumar Rajubhai Parmar vs Bhavnaben Dilipbhai Vyas on 6 April, 2023

C/SCA/6993/2019

Author: Gita Gopi

Print Page

Supreme Court: In case of personal injury claim, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration

 This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that taking notional income is not the correct approach. Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration because, that would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was Rs. 4,358/- per month. {Para 29}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Baby Sakshi Greola Vs  Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 

Civil Appeal No. of 2024 

Decided on December 11, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 963,2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The tribunal should take liberal view in assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability?

This Court has observed that it has to be borne in mind that while assessing compensation in a case like the present one, the claim can be awarded only once. It was observed that the claimant cannot come back to the court for enhancement at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. This Court further observed that courts or tribunals assessing compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the mater when awarding compensation. It was observed that while awarding this amount, courts are not only taking into account physical disability but also mental disability and various other factors. {Para 36}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Baby Sakshi Greola Vs  Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 

Civil Appeal No. of 2024 

Decided on December 11, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 963,2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692.

Print Page

Whether a person can recover compensation for emotional trauma unaccompanied by physical injury, including derivative losses stemming from injuries to family members?

 13.6 In the context of the United States, the most important piece of legal literature regarding ‘pain and suffering’ is an article titled Valuing Life and Limb in Tort : Scheduling Pain and Suffering, published in the year 1989. Relevant extracts thereof read as under:

“Pain and suffering and other intangible or non-economic losses are even more problematic. Physical pain and attendant suffering have for centuries being recognised as legitimate elements of damages, and “modern” tort law has seen a marked expansion of the rights to recover for forms of mental anguish. Some Courts have even permitted recovery for emotional trauma unaccompanied by physical injury, including derivative losses stemming from injuries to family members. The precise elements of compensable non-economic loss vary by jurisdiction. Pain and suffering may be used as a catch-all category for the jury's consideration of all non-pecuniary losses in a case of a non-fatal injury, subsuming other qualitative categories such as mental anguish and humiliation. More commonly, though, other non-economic elements - such as “loss of enjoyment of life” are accorded independent standing …”

In the Supreme Court of India

(Before C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.)

K.S. Muralidhar Vs  R. Subbulakshmi and Another 

Civil Appeal No(s). 12993/2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18337/2021)

Decided on November 22, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385,2024 INSC 886.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What factors are to be considered while fixing compensation for pain and suffering in case of motor accident claim petition regarding personal injury?

14.2 This Judgment was recently referred to by this Court in Sidram v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.19 reference was also made to Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty20 (irrespective of the percentage of disability incurred, the observations are instructive), wherein it was observed:

“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through out his life and a feeling is developed that his no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned.” {Para 14}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.)

K.S. Muralidhar Vs  R. Subbulakshmi and Another 

Civil Appeal No(s). 12993/2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18337/2021)

Decided on November 22, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385,2024 INSC 886.

Print Page