FACTS

The appeal stems from a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The deceased, S.T. Devaraju, lost his life in an accident attributed to negligent driving. The appellants, his family members, sought compensation, alleging a loss of dependency and future prospects due to his untimely death.

ISSUES

Determination of the compensation amount in a case of accidental death caused by negligent driving.

Applicability of future prospects based on the age of the deceased.

HELD The Tribunal found the accident resulted from the driver's negligent driving and determined compensation. The compensation was calculated using a multiplier of 13 and 30% for future prospects.

The High Court maintained the multiplier but reduced future prospects to 15% solely due to the deceased's age of 50 years 3 months. This reduction was found unjustified as the age group was 40 to 50 years.

DECISION: The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's adjustments and found them erroneous. The future prospects reduction was not supported by the applicable age group. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's compensation award.

REFERRED CASES:

Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680

Facts:

Bihar Staff Selection Commission issued Advertisement No.704 of 2004 for appointing 1510 Sub-Inspectors in Bihar. Selection process included physical and written tests.

Legal challenges and controversies arose over the years regarding model answers, results, and appointments.

In a separate selection for 299 posts, candidates were to undergo physical standards, examination, and written examination.

Issues:

Whether the petitioners, who did not participate in or failed the physical test, were entitled to the same exemption from physical test as the 133 candidates granted under a specific order of the Supreme Court?

Held:

The Supreme Court acknowledged that an exemption from the physical test was granted to 133 candidates in a unique context, and this exemption should not be treated as a precedent.

The Court recognized that the petitioners were not able to satisfy why they should be given appointment as Sub-Inspectors when they did not undertake the physical test or failed it.

The Court considered the counter affidavit filed by the Commission, indicating the number of candidates who participated in the selection process and the physical test results.

The Court emphasized that directing appointment of candidates who did not participate in or failed the physical test would create an unending process.

The Court referred to its previous orders, including the one dated 24.10.2018, which clarified that the exemption for 133 candidates was unique and should not lead to further proceedings.

Concluding that the petitioners were not entitled to the exemption sought, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions.

Facts:

The appellant was involved in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a bus operated by the respondent K.S.R.T.C. This accident resulted in severe injuries, leading to the amputation of the appellant's left leg.

Issues:

The adequacy of compensation awarded to the appellant for his injuries, permanent disability, loss of future earnings, medical expenses, and other related losses.

Held :

The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's physical functional disability was assessed at 75% of the left leg and 37.5% of the whole body. The Court emphasized that the appellant's earning capacity was permanently negated due to the disability, preventing him from pursuing his vocation as a painter or engaging in manual work.

The Court disagreed with the High Court's assessment of the appellant's physical disability at 25% of the whole body. It stated that compensation for loss of future earnings should be calculated based on the impact of the disability on the appellant's ability to earn a livelihood, rather than equating it directly to the percentage of physical disability.

Referring to relevant legal principles, the Court highlighted the need to consider the effect of permanent disability on the appellant's occupation, profession, and age, along with his ability to perform specific tasks. It stated that compensation should be determined based on the reduction in earning capacity caused by the disability, while also considering the nature of the work he was engaged in before the accident.

Based on these principles, the Court recalculated and enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant. The revised compensation amount included various elements such as pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, loss of earnings during treatment, loss of future earnings, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities.

Facts:

The State and Union Territories claimed to be following various measures, orders, and guidelines issued by the Central Government and relevant authorities. However, there were lapses and shortcomings in implementing these schemes and policies, as highlighted by intervenors.

Issues:

The implementation of circulars, policies, and schemes by the States and Union Territories.

Instances of excess in dealing with migrant laborers by authorities.

The transportation of stranded workers to their native places.

Identification and registration of migrant workers.

Care for migrant workers who returned to their native places.

Prosecution and complaints against migrant laborers for lockdown-related violations.

Held :

Implementation of Policies and Schemes The Court emphasized the importance of efficient and correct implementation of circulars, policies, and schemes. States and Union Territories were directed to streamline vigilance and supervision, taking appropriate action where required (Para 26).

Excess with Regard to Migrant Laborers While acknowledging commendable efforts by police and authorities, the Court highlighted instances of excess with respect to migrant laborers. The concerned Director General of Police/Police Commissioner were directed to issue necessary directions to address this (Para 26).

Transportation of Stranded Workers States/Union Territories were ordered to transport all stranded workers within 15 days through train, bus, or other means (Para 28).

Identification and Registration States/Union Territories were directed to complete the identification and registration of migrant workers, simplifying the process and publicizing information regarding their journey (Para 30).

Care for Returned Migrant Workers States were instructed to maintain detailed records of returned migrant workers and set up counseling centers at block and district levels to provide information about government schemes and employment avenues (Para 31).

Prosecution and Complaints Considering the circumstances, the Court suggested that the State may consider withdrawing prosecutions and complaints lodged against migrant laborers for lockdown-related violations (Para 33).

Additional directions were issued to ameliorate the conditions of migrant workers pending consideration of other issues (Para 34).

Facts:

The appellant, a tenant, occupied two shop rooms - one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor, for textile business. The landlord filed eviction petitions based on arrears of rent, bonafide requirement, and material damage under relevant sections of the Kerala Rent Control Act. The trial court decreed eviction on the bonafide requirement ground. The Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed this decision. A revision petition was filed in the High Court, which interfered with the Appellate Authority's findings.

Issues:

Scope of enquiry under Section 11(8) of the Act

Effect of the availability of vacant rooms in other buildings owned by the landlord on the landlord's claim under Section 11(8) of the Act

Held:

The Appellate Authority found vacant rooms in the building owned by the landlord and in other buildings, indicating the tenant's lack of bonafide requirement. This finding of fact was not perverse.

The Appellate Authority's reliance on the Building Tax Assessment Register, which indicated vacant rooms owned by the landlord, is a factual finding that cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction.

The tenant's possession of a room leased by the mother-in-law was temporary and lacked bonafide possession, a valid finding by the Appellate Authority.

The comparative hardship analysis by the Appellate Authority was a factual finding that cannot be interfered with, as it was not shown to be perverse.

The High Court's interference with the factual findings made by the Appellate Authority exceeded its revisional jurisdiction and was incorrect.

FACTS:

On 18.03.2004, an accident occurred resulting in the death of the claimant's son, who was allegedly a pillion rider on a motor vehicle driven by respondent No. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) concluded that the accident was due to respondent No. 2's rash and negligent driving. The MACT determined compensation, and an appeal was filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court set aside the MACT's judgment based on lack of eyewitness testimony and absence of evidence regarding a valid driving license for the deceased.

ISSUES:

Whether negligence needs to be proven under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act?

Validity of the deceased's driving license.

Appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation.

HELD:

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 163A does not require the claimant to prove negligence or default by the owner or any other person. Eyewitness status is not a prerequisite.

The High Court erred in using the absence of a valid driving license as a ground to disentitle the claimant, even though this point was given up by the insurance company before the MACT.

The Court noted a calculation error in the multiplier used for compensation and corrected it from 8 to 17 based on the victim's age.

The argument regarding maximum liability of Rs. 1 lakh was not entertained as it was raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.

DECISION: The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to pay the revised compensation amount to the claimant within three months.

Facts:

The case involves a fatal accident where a person on a cycle was hit by a bus owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UP SRTC).

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) found the bus driver's rash and negligent driving to be the cause of the accident.

Compensation was awarded to the victim's family.

Issues:

The main issue was whether the liability for compensation rested solely with UP SRTC or if the insurance company was also liable.

Interpretation of the term "owner" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Held:

The court referred to the definition of "owner" under Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It emphasized that this definition is not exhaustive and must be construed broadly in the given context.

The term "owner" can include the person who has actual possession and control of the vehicle and under whose directions the driver operates the vehicle.

The liability of the "owner" is vicarious for the tort committed by its employee (driver) during the course of employment.

The court distinguished a previous case (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari) and pointed out that it dealt with the old Motor Vehicles Act of 1939.

The court held that an agreement (Clause 10) between UP SRTC and the bus owner, which specified the owner's liability for driver's actions, did not bind parties not privy to the agreement.

In light of the above principles, the court concluded that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation awarded by the MACT, along with interest.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to make the payment within three months.

Facts:

The case revolves around the reimbursement of sales tax on works contracts executed by M/s. B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. The State of Orissa had levied sales tax on the taxable turnover of these contracts for 1998-99 to 2000-01. The contractor claimed reimbursement based on Circular dated 04.11.1986, which allowed reimbursement on proof of payment. However, another Circular suspended reimbursement until further clarification.

Issues:

Whether the Circular dated 04.11.1986 obligates reimbursement for completed items of work?

Whether the State Government's change of view in Circular dated 07.11.2001 is valid?

Applicability of Clauses 13.3 of Instructions to Bidders (ITB) and 45.1 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) to the reimbursement claim.

Held :

The Court notes the vacillating understanding of the State Government reflected in Circulars dated 04.11.1986 and 07.11.2001. Such understanding cannot determine contractual obligations, which must be assessed based on legal principles and terms of the contract.

The Constitution's Forty-sixth Amendment introduced Article 366(29-A), allowing States to levy sales tax on goods/materials used in works contracts. The works contract is divided into sale of goods/materials and supply of labor/services, enabling sales tax on goods/materials involved.

Amendments to the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, expanded the definition of "Sale" to include goods in works contracts. Taxable turnover for works contracts includes gross value minus labor and service charges. "Completed item of work" in Clause 45.2 of GCC signifies reimbursement after completion.

"Completed item of work" distinguishes completed and incomplete work for reimbursement. The clause's context indicates reimbursement post-completion, not sales tax on completed work.

The Court rejects the State's claim that reimbursement doesn't apply to works contracts. The second part of Clause 45.2 allows deductions, confirming its applicability to works contracts.

Contractual terms are binding, and the State must honor the reimbursement claim. Grounds to resist reimbursement based on "completed item of work" and contractual clauses are untenable.

The Circular dated 04.11.1986 reflects the State's obligation for reimbursement and its awareness of existing contracts. Subsequent doubts and contrary decisions do not negate this obligation.

FACTS:

The appellants, wife, and mother of the deceased, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras that enhanced the compensation awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The accident occurred on 21 June 2012. The deceased, a BSc graduate, was employed in a private company. The appellants provided salary certificates and bank statements to support their claim for compensation.

ISSUES:

Whether the High Court was justified in discarding the salary certificate for May 2012

whether the compensation awarded by the High Court should be enhanced.

HELD:

The High Court enhanced the compensation without properly considering the evidence, including the salary certificate for May 2012 (Para 4).

The salary certificate for May 2012, showing the net pay of the deceased as Rs 23,419, should not have been discarded (Para 5).

The Tribunal's finding that the deceased was employed with a different company was not properly substantiated (Para 6).

The compensation must be recomputed based on the salary certificate for May 2012, future prospects, and legal principles (Para 7).

The total compensation awarded to the appellants is Rs 45,28,981, with interest at nine percent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition (Para 9).

REFERRED CASES:

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680