Sikkim HC: The Motor accident claim tribunal can not grant Future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads in petition U/S 163A of Motor vehicle Act

 In light of all the foregoing discussions, we hold that

under Section 163A Future prospects or any other additional

non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim

Petition under Section 163A of the M. V. Act is to be strictly

computed on the structured formula provided in the Second

Schedule to the Act. The reference stands answered

accordingly. {Para 20}

 THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAC App. No.10 of 2018

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs  Dilu Rai and Others

DIVISION BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE

Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

DATED : 4th APRIL, 2022.

Print Page

Madras HC: How to calculate compensation under S 163A of Motor vehicle Act?

 Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The appellants are entitled only for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. In view of the excess amount granted by the Tribunal under conventional heads, the appellants are not entitled to any enhancement.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

C.M.A.No.400 of 2020

Sendhiammal  Vs. Ramshuklal

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

DATED: 13.02.2020.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Madras HC: Claimant is not entitled to get future prospect U/S 163A of Motor vehicle Act

From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the appellants claimed compensation for the death of one Munusamy. When the claim petition was filed under Section 163(A), the Tribunal has to follow structural formula contained in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Second Schedule, the claimants are entitled to compensation only if the income of the deceased is Rs.40,000/- per annum or less than the same. The claimants have claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and the Tribunal accepting the same, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,300/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, fixed the age as 31 years as per Post Mortem Certificate, applied multiplier 17 and granted compensation as per the Second Schedule. As per structural formula, the appellants are not entitled for any enhancement towards future prospects. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

C.M.A.No.400 of 2020

Sendhiammal  Vs. Ramshuklal

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

DATED: 13.02.2020.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What parameters Appellate court should follow while deciding appeal against acquittal?

 From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, if the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against an order of acquittal:

(a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence on record;

(c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.’

(d) the appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

(e) if the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

(f) the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the Accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. {Para 29}

30. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles and the law laid down by this Court, if the entire evidence as well as the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are examined, we are of the view that the High Court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect while dealing with the acquittal appeals.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 and 2542-2543 of 2024

Decided On: 16.01.2026

Tulasareddi and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Pancholi and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: V.M. Pancholi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0072/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page