Consumer Law – Insurance Claim – Repudiation – National Commission's Error – The National Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by interpreting the insurance policy's nature, altering its coverage scope beyond the repudiation grounds – State Commission dismissed the claim without adequate examination of policy terms – Appeal allowed – Orders of both Commissions set aside – Case remanded to State Commission for fresh decision based on repudiation grounds [Paras 14-15].

Insurance Policy – Coverage Interpretation – National Commission wrongly construed the change in the insurance policy from "anywhere in India to anywhere in India" to a "Sales Turnover policy" – Proper interpretation required within repudiation grounds – Appeal allowed – Directions for fresh assessment by State Commission [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of NCDRC and SCDRC set aside – Matter remanded to State Commission for fresh decision based on initial grounds of repudiation – No order as to costs.

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Just Compensation – Supreme Court held that the compensation determined under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act must be fair, reasonable, and equitable – High Court's grant of compensation was inadequate – Enhanced compensation awarded [Paras 2, 8-12, 14-15].

Future Prospects – Income Assessment – Supreme Court applied the principles from Pranay Sethi's case, adding 50% to the actual salary for future prospects – Monthly income taken as Rs. 13,817/- after deducting certain allowances – Annual income calculated at Rs. 1,65,810/- – Multiplier of 16 applied for loss of dependency [Paras 8-12].

Conventional Heads – Compensation – Supreme Court awarded Rs. 15,000/- each for 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses' – Additional Rs. 35,000/- for 'loss of spousal consortium' and Rs. 80,000/- for 'loss of parental consortium' to minor children – Deducted excessive amounts awarded under 'loss of love and affection' by the High Court [Paras 13-19].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,29,260/- awarded – Directions issued for payment within 8 weeks with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization [Paras 21-22].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Accident – High Court's reduction of compensation from Rs. 2,064,000/- to Rs. 1,134,136/- challenged – Supreme Court found High Court erred by not considering future prospects and reducing the interest rate – Adjusted notional income with a 40% rise for future prospects and a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses – Compensation recalculated under loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and conventional heads – Ordered Rs. 1,387,790/- as compensation with 7.5% p.a. interest from the claim petition filing date till realization [Paras 1-5].

Future Prospects – Compensation Calculation – High Court did not award future prospects in determining compensation – Supreme Court applied 40% increase for future prospects based on Pranay Sethi case [Paras 2-4].

Interest Rate – Reduction by High Court – High Court reduced interest rate from 9% to 6% – Supreme Court corrected interest rate to 7.5% p.a. considering the time elapsed since the accident [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – High Court's judgment modified – Appellants awarded Rs. 1,387,790/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from claim petition filing date till realization – No order as to costs [Para 5].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Accident – High Court reduced compensation from Rs. 3,239,000/- to Rs. 1,970,000/- – Supreme Court found the reduction of the deceased's notional income from Rs. 17,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- erroneous – Adequate compensation recalculated considering documentary evidence, future prospects, and correct notional income – Compensation for loss of dependency recalculated to Rs. 2,795,520/- – Total compensation awarded Rs. 2,973,520/- with 9% p.a. interest from claim petition filing date till realization [Paras 1-27].

Determination of Notional Income – High Court's reduction of deceased's monthly income from Rs. 17,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- deemed incorrect – Supreme Court established the deceased's income at Rs. 15,600/- based on documentary evidence and statutory minimum wages [Paras 16-22].

Future Prospects – Addition of 40% for future prospects as per Pranay Sethi's case – Loss of dependency recalculated using a multiplier of 16, with a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses [Paras 16-22].

Compensation under Non-conventional Heads – Insurance Company's objection to compensation under non-conventional heads not entertained due to lack of appeal – Legal question on compensation under non-conventional heads kept open [Para 23].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – High Court's judgment modified – Appellants awarded Rs. 2,973,520/- with interest at 9% p.a. from claim petition filing date till realization – Enhanced compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company within six weeks, apportioned among the Appellants as per Tribunal's award [Paras 24-27].

Promissory Estoppel – Doctrine of estoppel will not be applied against the State in its governmental public or sovereign capacity – Exception where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice – Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act rescinds earlier tax exemptions – Estoppel cannot operate against legislative functions – Union not bound by 2003 O.M. due to statutory changes – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31-55].

CGST Act – Section 174(2)(c) – Provision explicitly rescinds earlier tax exemptions – New GST regime provides 58% budgetary support instead of 100% exemption – Legislative changes override earlier promises – Doctrine of promissory estoppel not applicable against statutory mandates [Paras 28-31].

Public Interest – Withdrawal of exemptions in larger public interest – Consistent judicial stance that State can withdraw exemptions when public interest demands – Estoppel not applicable when policy change serves public interest [Paras 56-58].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Promissory estoppel claim rejected – Union's decision to provide 58% budgetary support upheld – No order as to costs [Para 63].

Land Acquisition Act – Determination of Compensation – High Court erred in reducing compensation from Rs. 1000/- per square yard to Rs. 166/- to Rs. 200/- per square yard – Original Reference Court's assessment of Rs. 1000/- per square yard restored – State's failure to appeal earlier Reference Court judgment noted – Assessment of compensation based on sale deeds examined – Appeals allowed to the extent of restoring compensation to Rs. 1000/- per square yard [Paras 5-10].

Market Value – Assessment – Sale deeds relied upon by landowners and State examined – Sale deeds closer to Section 4 notification date considered unreliable due to variance in price and small area – Compensation assessed based on fair market value [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment quashed – Compensation set at Rs. 1000/- per square yard as per earlier Reference Court decision – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Murder – Acquittal – Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' evidence – Material contradictions noted in testimonies – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-62].

Discrepancies in Evidence – Vital discrepancies in prosecution's witnesses – Testimonies failed to corroborate key facts – Contradictory versions on who delivered the fatal blow – Witnesses were related, lacking independent evidence [Paras 41-52].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Material improvements and contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Inconsistent statements regarding the assailants – Lack of clarity on crucial facts [Paras 40-43].

Independent Witnesses – Prosecution's failure to examine any independent witness – All witnesses related to each other – Evidence deemed unreliable due to contradictions [Paras 48-54].

Reappreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court reappreciated evidence due to misreading and misappreciation by lower courts – Found prosecution's evidence unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 55-60].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 61-62].

Medical Education – Provisional Admission – High Court's orders granting provisional admissions beyond the cut-off date are not legally sustainable – Strict adherence to the admission schedule is mandated – Admissions based on merit-cum-preference through NEET examination – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders quashed [Paras 20-27].

Admission Schedule – Medical Council of India Regulations 2000 – Last date for admissions to post-graduate courses is 31st May – No deviation allowed – Orders extending admissions beyond this date are invalid [Paras 20-22].

Merit Principle – Provisional admissions ignored the principle of merit – High Court’s orders based on provisional basis, not considering merit ranks – Such admissions cannot be validated by the Court [Paras 24-26].

Sympathetic Consideration – Court refused to show sympathy for students admitted in contravention to regulations – Students admitted beyond cut-off date and without merit cannot be allowed to continue [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Provisional admissions annulled – No costs [Paras 27-28].

Defamation – Private Complaint by Minister/Public Servant – Special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC does not eclipse general procedure under Section 199(6) – Public servant's right to file individual complaint preserved – Appeals concerning procedural objections dismissed [Paras 41-56].

Tweets and Defamation – Statement “your answer will disclose your scam” not per se defamatory – Summoning order against appellant for this statement quashed – Application of mind by Magistrate found lacking – Appeal by appellant who made the statement allowed [Paras 57-63].

Procedural Protection – Section 237 CrPC provides safety valve against malicious prosecution – Section 250 CrPC offers similar protection for individual complaints – No additional protection needed beyond existing statutory provisions [Paras 52-55].

Decision – Appeal by Manoj Kumar Tiwari (A-1) dismissed – Appeal by Vijender Gupta (A-5) allowed – Summoning order against A-5 quashed – Complaint to proceed against other accused [Paras 56-65].