Motor Vehicles Act

The law was clarified by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in The New India Assurance Company v. Somwati (2020). Relying on the principles established by a two-judge bench in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram & others [(2018) 18 SCC 130], the Court recognized three distinct categories of consortium: spousal, parental, and filial.

A series of landmark judgments from the Indian judiciary has been instrumental in shaping a just, equitable, and standardized framework for compensating victims of motor vehicle accidents. These rulings have clarified key principles in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ensuring that the claims process is victim-centric.

In Anoop Maheshwari v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd [2025 INSC 1076], the Supreme Court held that the disability to be assessed for the purpose of awarding compensation in motor vehicle compensation is the functional disability.

The High Court of Kerala, in Jyothis Raj Krishna v Sunny George & Ors [2024/KER/81459] addressed the issue of determining the notional income for a 5-year-old minor, Jyothis Raj Krishna, who suffered severe injuries in a motor accident, resulting in a vegetative state.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) has power to award higher compensation than what is claimed by the claimant, if the claimant is eligible for more than what was originally claimed, says the SC in Mona Baghel & Others v Sajjan Singh Yadav & Others.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Parminder Singh v Honey Goyal & Others, issued directions to ensure direct transfer of motor accident claim compensation to claimants' bank accounts to minimize delays and ensure timely payments.

A legal representative under M V Act A legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not…

The notional income of a minor aged 5 years in a motor accident claim should be fixed based on the minimum wages for skilled workers as per the state notification for Kerala, as per GO (P) No 56 /2017 Fin dated 28/4/2017 as the Second Schedule has been omitted, says the Kerala High Court in Master Jyotish Raj Krishna @ Jyothi Krishna v Sunny George & Others [ 2024:KER:87009].

Multiple claim petitions for the same accident are not maintainable, either under the Employee's Compensation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act, the Himachal Pradesh High Court says in Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v Shibi Devi [2024:HHC:14477].

The Supreme Court (SC) in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v Tilak Singh & Others [2006 (4) SCC 404] and Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Sudhakaran K V & Others [ 2008 (7) SCC 428] says that a pillion rider on a motorcycle is not a third party. But another bench has reservations about the view and referred the issue to a larger bench.

The future prospects cannot be deprived to both fixed-salary and self-employed individuals in motor vehicle accident compensation as they possess income growth potential due to inflation and career advancement, The Supreme Court (SC) says in Kavita Nagar & Others v The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.