SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 823

SURYA KANT, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Hanumantharaju B. (Dead) by LRs. – Appellant
Versus
M. Akram Pasha – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Surya Pratap Deva, Adv. Mr. Thakur P. Janyani, Adv. Mr. Jugul Kishor Gupta, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the method for calculating compensation in motor accident claims as applied in this judgment?

What is the court’s stance on deducting pension, provident fund, or life insurance from the victim's salary for computing loss of earnings?

What is the appropriate treatment of future prospects and disability percentage in determining the enhanced compensation?


Table of Content
1. accident details, medical assessments, and initial compensation facts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. disability percentage and amount awarded by mact. (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
3. recognized need for future prospects in calculating compensation. (Para 16 , 19 , 20)
4. court's approach towards disability assessment, ensuring accurate measures for compensation. (Para 22 , 23 , 25)
5. final enhancement of compensation and adjusted interest rate. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in MFA No. 3569/2016 (MV-I) and MFA No. 4867/2016 (MV-I) whereby, the appeals preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2016 passed in MVC No. 5024/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru were partly allowed. The insurance company being Respondent No. 2, which filed the MFA No. 4867/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka, has not challenged the order of the High Court in the aforesaid MFA No. 4867/2016.

3. The facts of the case in brief as can be culled out from the records are that on 10.05.2010, aroun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top